CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 03/19/2010

Claim Number : N08057-017

Claimant : United States Environmental Services, L.L.C. 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $882,305.29

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. The No. 6 

oil discharged by the tank barge DM 932, moved downstream into an area designated as Division 

B at mile marker 89.1 of the lower end of the Mississippi River where the oil coated and 

contaminated the shoreline, docks, barges and deep draft vessels, offshore of the Exxon 

Chalmette Refinery. On July 29, 2008, the United States Environmental Services, L.L.C. 

(USES) deployed personnel, materials and equipment to ExxonMobil/Chalmette Refinery in 

Division B, for response and clean-up of Chalmette’s docks, tugs, barges, and deep draft vessels, 

which were contaminated with heavy, thick No. 6 oil. While this removal action had no 

designated Zone Manager for the Chalmette refinery area, Mr. , Spill Response 

Officer, of ExxonMobil provided oversight of the response and approved the 

materials/equipment and labor identified on each daily by signing the daily field log.1

 In 

addition, personnel from the U.S. Coast Guard worked on-scene to ensure the clean-up was 

properly implemented and completed. USES continued the removal action at the Chalmette 

Refinery through August 22, 2008. 

When the removal action activities were completed at the Chalmette Refinery, the Claimant, 

USES submitted the invoices to ExxonMobil/Chalmette Refinery for payment. When payment 

was refused, the Claimant submitted the invoices for uncompensated removal costs to the NPFC. 

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), 33 USC § 2701 et seq. As the owner 

of the barge which discharged oil to a “waters of the United States,” the RP is liable for removal 

costs and damages, 33 USC § 2702(a). “Removal costs” referred to in 33 USC § 2702(a) are 

covered in subsection (b) of this section to mean, “(B) any removal costs incurred by any person 

for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National Contingency Plan [NCP].” 

OPA specifies that the RP is liable for “any removal costs by any person for acts” that are 

“consistent with the NCP.” 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

 

1

 Mr. is certified through the National Safety Counsel and has responded to oil spills for over 30-years. 

He also provides training to the employees at ExxonMobil in how to respond to oil spills as well as EMT training. 

Mr. is the Demurrage Analyst at ExxonMobil and has worked as a Dock-Man. 
III. The Claimant and the Claim

As a result of the incident, USES provided oil removal services at the ExxonMobil/Chalmette 

Refinery in the area designated as Division B on the Mississippi River by the Incident 

Command. On February 2, 2009, USES submitted the removal cost claim in the amount of 

$849,114.79 to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of its 

uncompensated removal costs represented by Invoice No. 080140141A for the deployment of 

boom, decontamination of oil contaminated vessels and docks in Division B, Mile Marker 89.1, 

during the time period of July 29, 2008 through August 22, 2008.2

 Initially, the NPFC treated 

this claim as a “mystery” spill claim and assigned claim number 909080-001. Yet, the clean up 

activities occurring in Division B, Mile Marker 89.1, was downstream from the ACL barge DM 

932 oil spill incident. Accordingly, the NPFC conducted interviews with Coast Guard Personnel, 

reviewed the Coast Guard database associated with this incident, and obtained information from 

Mr. of NOAA which the NPFC then determined this claim correlates with the DM 

932 oil spill incident claims. The NPFC initially changed the claim number to N08057-007 

which was altered to N08057-017. (Enclosure 1-Binder). The NPFC sent notification of the 

claim number changes to all involved parties via email on April 8, 2009.3

On October 5, 2009, the NPFC sent the Claimant an email alerting them to discrepancies found 

in their sum certain of the claim. USES agreed with the NPFC and sent an email requesting that 

their sum certain be amended to $882,305.29.4

IV. Claim Presentment

The NPFC sent the RP notification letter to all parties responsible for the removal action at the 

Chalmette Refinery. On April 8, 2009, the NPFC sent the RP notification letter to Ms. 

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

ACL – External Counsel. On August 4, 2009, the NPFC sent Chalmette Refining, LLC, an RP 

notification letter to the attention of Mr. . 

V. The Audits

At various times in the adjudication process, the NPFC made requests for the audits to Mr 

 of Maritime Alliance Group, Inc, (MAGI). Mr. responded with requests for details of 

the work performed at the Chalmette Refinery and requested confirmation of the Exxon 

representative who had directed and supervised USES’ daily activities.5 To date, the NPFC has 

not received any audits performed by ACL or their contracted partners for costs which are 

subject of this claim. 

VI. APPLICABLE LAW: 

Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 104 Stat 484, 33 USC §2701 et seq., provides a strict 

liability and compensation regime for certain oil pollution. In general, “each responsible party 

for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive 

economic zone is liable for the removal costs and damages...that result from such incident. OPA 

§ 1002(a), 33 USC §2702(a). 

 

2

 See, Claim Form signed by Mr. dated January 28, 2009. 

3

 See, email, Ms. dated April 8, 2009 entitled, N08057-017. 

4

 See, email, dated October 5, 2009 from Mr. @usesgroup.com. 

5

 See, email, dated July 23, 2009, from Ms. to Mr requesting audit reports. 
Removal costs” referred to in 33 USC § 2702(a) are covered in subsection (b) of this section to 

mean, “(B) any removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan [NCP].” OPA specifies that the “responsible 

party” is liable for “any removal costs by any person” that are “consistent with the NCP.” 33 

USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

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 NCP and uncompensated damages.

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 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]. 

The National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300, provides the organizational structure and 

procedures in preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, and contaminants (40 CFR § 300.1). The provisions in 40 CFR § 300.185 

direct industry groups and local industries such as a terminal transferring oil in bulk with the 

technical and scientific capabilities to assist the on-scene coordinator during an oil spill incident.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the “Delegation 

of Authority for Determination of Consistency with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP) for the Payment of Uncompensated Removal Cost Claims under Section 

1012(a)(4), Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” and is consistent with the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 

§ 2702(b)(1)(B).

6

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.

 

6

 Delegation of Authority from COMDT letter 5402 of 19 March 1992.

The NPFC Claims Manager interviewed MSTCS , via email on October 22, 

2009. MSTCS was one of the Coast Guard representatives who worked on-scene to 

ensure the clean-up was complete as a result of the DM 932 spill. The MSTCS’ response to 

the NPFC stated the DM932 oil spill was a release of No. 6 oil from the barge and that the 

Chalmette Refinery was contaminated with the No. 6 oil. The MSTCS further stated that 

most of the shoreline, docks, barges and deep draft vessels that were in the area (Division B) 

as well as down river were also contaminated with the No. 6 oil. MSTCS added that 

all of the facilities were impacted by the No. 6 oil.8

 ACL did not designate a Zone Manager 

for the Chalmette Refinery location (Division B). Instead, the Claimant submitted their daily 

sheets to Mr. of ExxonMobil for each day of the response for that specific 

area. Mr. approved the materials/equipment and labor identified on each daily by 

signing the daily field log. 

The NPFC Claims Manager also interviewed Mr who was an Emergency 

Operations Division Manager for USES. Mr. provided a synopsis of the cleanup 

operations that were completed by USES at ExxonMobil’s Chalmette Refining facility 

during the DM 932 oil spill. Mr. found that when USES initially arrived at Chalmette, 

the DM 932 was actively spilling oil into the Mississippi River above the facility and that the 

spilled oil that was moving downriver with the current which oiled Chalmette’s docks, barges 

and vessels that were both loading and unloading cargo at the Chalmette Refining facility. 

Additionally, Mr. asserted that the oil that was not fully contained from upriver 

collection sites and cleaning operations associated with the DM 932 oil spill and oil

continued to impact the Chalmette Refining docks and associated barges and vessels 

throughout the entire duration of the DM 932 response.9

According to Mr. , prior to initiating clean up efforts, USES placed diversion boom and 

absorbent upriver of the vessel to reduce oiling from free floating oil associated with DM932 spill, and absorbent and placed containment boom downriver of the vessel to contain and 

recover the diverted oil and any oil that may re-enter due to removal operations. Yet, the 

current of the Mississippi River was too strong for the diversion boom and absorbent to 

deflect all the spilled oil from USES’ operations.10

Mr. claimed that barges arriving at the Chalmette Refining facility through the oilcontaminated waters of the Mississippi River were coated with oil requiring decontamination 

and oil removal. The barges ladened with cargo, also had oil splashed on the decks and the 

sides of these barges from their transit. As the USCG advised, the Chalmette Refining 

facility was prohibited from transferring oil to or from a cargo barge with the oil on the deck 

because of inherent fire hazard and health and safety concerns of the transfer personnel and 

tankermen.11

 In response, Mr. noted that USES proceeded with removal operations by 

cleaning the decks of the barges with high pressure hot water and manual scrubbing using 

hand applied surfactants on absorbent pads, thus, removing oil from the hulls of barges at the 

Chalmette Refining docks as the barges were unloaded or loaded cargo. Often times, as the 

freeboard of the barge increased, oil from the Mississippi River waters would adhere to the 

hull at river level causing vertical oiling and requiring removal. Mr. claimed that its 

cleaning operations became an ongoing operation because of the changing draft of the barges 

as the barge was offloaded and then loaded with cargo.12

 

8

See, Email statement from MSTCS dated October 22, 2009.

9

See, email statement from Mr dated, February 24, 2010. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 
Finally, Mr. confirmed in his email that USES’ daily field tickets which accounted for 

personnel, equipment, materials, and supplies that were utilized for the DM 932 cleanup 

operations at the Chalmette Refining facility were directly supervised and witnessed by an 

ExxonMobil employee and the daily field tickets were signed by that employee. Also, all of 

USES’s operations were fully supervised by the USCG Unified Command. USCG personnel 

made unscheduled daily site visits and inspected all of the vessels and barges prior to 

departure from the ExxonMobil Facility.13 Mr. stated that the cleanup operations at the 

Chalmette Refining facility were consistent with Phase III operations of the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) – 40 CFR 300.310.14

USES arrived on site on July 29, 2008; Mr. of USES was the Supervisor for the 

clean-up activities that took place at the Chalmette Refining facility. The following is a 

timeline of summarized daily response actions performed by the Claimant while situated on 

the Lower Mississippi River at the Chalmette/Exxon Refinery. The summaries are based on 

the dailies as well as the Operations Summary Spreadsheet provided by the Claimant and 

Chalmette/Exxon and the interview accounts conducted by the NPFC Claims Manager. The 

NPFC has confirmed that these vessels were decontaminated of oil and cleared by using the 

Coast Guard Data-Base Spreadsheet.15 16

 On July 29, 2008, USES arrived on site with five employees and utilized two trucks, 

one steam cleaner, 200-foot containment boom, one generator 4 KW, one submersible 

pump, to 1-inch and 2-21-foot 150-300 hp motor boats to decontaminate the barges 

and other vessels at the Chalmette/Exxon Refinery. (See USES daily dated 7/29/08, 

signed by , Exxon). The USES crew cleaned and decontaminated 

the following vessels of oil on this day: the FMT 3190/3192 barges, the barge Kirby 

31800, the Kirby 29034 & 27015 barges, the Kirby 28036 & 28019 barges, and the 

Kirby 20707 & 23701 barges, Jill P Harvey tug with the FMT 3112, 3023, 3038 

barges, and the Miss Marcy Parker tug with the Kirby 31800 barge, and the John P 

Pasentine tug with the FMT 3190, 3192 barges. 

 On July 30, 2008, USES arrived on site with five employees and utilized 2 trucks, 1 

steam cleaner 200-feet of containment boom, 1 generator to 4KW, 1 submersible 

pump, t 1”, 2 21’ boats with 150-300 hp motor, 1-6mil Poly bags 20 bags of sorbent 

boom, 300 feet of rope. (See USES daily dated 7/30/08, signed by , 

Exxon). The Kirby 20707/23701 barges and the WEB 244 and 253 were added for 

decontamination. 

 On July 31, 2008, USES arrived on site with 16 employees and utilized; 4 trucks, 4 

steam cleaners, 200’ of containment boom, a 4KW Generator, 4 submersible pumps 5 

21’ 150-300 hp motor boat, 20 bags of sorbent boom, and 300’ of rope. (See USES 

daily dated 7/31/08, signed by , Exxon). The “City of Port Allen” 

tug was decontaminated by the Claimant. 

 On August 1, 2008, USES was on site with 16 employees and utilized; 4 trucks, 4 

steam cleaners, 200’ of containment boom, 4 generators, 4 submersible pumps, 5 21’ 

boats, 20 bales of sorbent boom and 300’ of rope. (See USES daily dated 8/1/08, 

signed be , Exxon). The Claimant decontaminated the following 

 

13 Id. 

14 40 CFR § 300.310(a)(b)(c). 

15 See. Operations Summary Spreadsheet. 

16 See, Coast Guard Data Base Spreadsheet. 
vessels of oil: the Kirby 20707, Kirby 23701, Kirby 27015 and Kirby 29034, Smitty 

17, Kirby 27722, Kirby 30719, WEB 210 and WEB 218, M402, M406, M409, and 

the “Eagle Carina.”

 On August 2, 2008, USES was on site with 18 employees and utilized; 4 trucks, 4 

steam cleaners, 300’ of containment boom, 4 generators, 4 submersible pumps, 5 21’ 

boats-150-300 hp motor, 300’ rope, and 2 bales of sorbent pads. (See USES daily 

dated 8/2/08, signed by , Exxon).The Claimant decontaminated the 

following vessels of oil: FMT 3110, FMT 3212, Kirby 28036 and Kirby 28019. 

 On August 3, 2008, USES was on site with 10 employees and utilized; 4 trucks, 2 

steam cleaners, 300’ of containment boom, 2 generators, 2 submersible pump, 3 21’ 

boat-150-300 hp motor, 6 mil poly bags, 300’ of rope, and 2 bales of sorbent pads. 

(See USES daily dated 8/3/08, signed by , Exxon). The Claimant 

decontaminated the following vessels of oil: M401, M403, Kirby 20707, Kirby 

23701, K27751, and Kirby 2775.

 On August 4, 2008, USES was on site with 19 employees and utilized; 4 trucks, 4 

steam cleaners, 300’ of containment boom, 4 generators, 4 submersible pumps, 5 21’ 

boats-150-300 hp motor, 300’ rope, and 2 bales of sorbent pads (See USES daily 

dated 8/4/08,signed by , Exxon). The Claimant decontaminated the 

following vessels of oil: WEB 217, WEB 248, FMT 304, FMT 3168 M 401, M 403, 

M406, and the M409 to August 5th. 

 On August 5, 2008, USES was on site with 45 employees and utilized; 5 trucks, 14 

steam cleaners, 11 trash pumps, 40’ of petroleum hoses (1”), 100’ of petroleum hoses 

(2”), 300’ of containment boom, 4 generators, 4 submersible pumps, 2 24-26’ vessels, 

4 20-23’ vessels, 12 16-20’ vessels, 1 600’ spool of rope, 300 <1/2 spool) of rope, 1 

bale of sorbent pads and 1 40lb boom anchor. (See USES daily dated 8/5/08, signed 

by , Exxon). The Claimant decontaminated following vessels of oil: 

the Kirby 28001, Smitty 18 Chem 299, FMT 3190/3192, WEB 210, WEB 218, and 

NM 1024. 

 On August 6, 2008, USES was on site with 45 employees and utilized; 5 trucks, 14 

steam cleaners, 10 trash pump--2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose--1”, 100’ petroleum hose--

2”, 300’ containment boom, 4 generators, 4 submersible pumps--1”, 2 24-26’ vessels 

w/150-300 hp motor, 4 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 12 16-20’ vessel w/<50 

hp motor, 7 bags of sorbent boom, 1 rope, 1⁄4”, (600’ spool), 300’ rope, 3/8”, (<1⁄2 

spool), 1 bale sorbent pads, and 15 gallons of degreaser, VC Cleaner. (See USES 

daily dated 8/6/08, signed by , Exxon). The Claimant cleaned oil 

from the decks of Barges 20707, 23701, from the sides of Barges 406, 409, and from 

the side of the Tug Agamemnon. (See USES tailgate safety meeting sheet). 

 On August 7, 2008, USES was on site with 40 employees and utilized, 5 trucks, 14 

steam cleaners, 10 trash pumps--2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 4 generators to 4 KW, 4 submersible pumps to 1”, 2 24-

26” vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 4 20-23’ vessel w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessels w/ <50 hp motor, 7 bags of sorbent boom, 1 rope, 1⁄4” (600’ spool), 300’ rope, 

3/8”, (<1⁄2 spool), 1 bale of sorbent pads, and 5 gallons of degreaser, VC Cleaner. (See 

USES daily dated, 8/7/09, signed by , Exxon). The Claimant cleaned 
and decontaminated the following of oil: the sides of the barges M402, M406, M409, 

and the side of the Tug Agamemnon. The Claimant began to clean the docks. 

 On August 8, 2008, USES was on site with 42 employees and utilized; 5 trucks, 12 

steam cleaners, 10 trash pumps--2”gas, 40’ of petroleum hose 1”, 100’ of petroleum 

hose--2”, 300’ containment boom, 4 generators to 4KW, 4 submersible pumps to 1”, 

2 24-26’ vessel w/150-300 hp motor, 4 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessels w/<50 hp motor, 7 bags of sorbent boom 1 rope, 1⁄4” (600’ spool), 300’ rope 

3/8” (<1⁄2 spool), 1 bale of sorbent pads, 5 gallons of degreaser, VC Cleaner, 1 digital 

camera, and 1 roll of duct tape. (See USES daily dated, 8/8/08, signed by 

, Exxon). The Claimant cleaned and decontaminated the following of oil: 

barges M406, M409, 20715T, 29039T, Dock 5, Dock 6, and Chalmette’s Crude 

Dock. (See USES tailgate safety meeting sheet.) 

 On August 9, 2008, USES was on site with 43 employees and utilized; 10 trucks, 13 

steam cleaners, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 5 Generators to 4KW, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, 2 24-

26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 4 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessels w/<50 hp motor, 5 bags of sorbent boom, 1 rope, 1⁄4” (600’ spool), 300’ rope, 

3/8”, (<1⁄2 spool), 1 bale of sorbent pads, 5 gallons of Degreaser, VC Cleaner, 1 digital 

camera, and 1 roll of duct tape. (See USES daily dated, 8/9/09, signed by 

, Exxon). The Claimant cleaned cleaned and decontaminated the following 

of oil: barge decks of 28036, 27015, and 29034, as well as the Exxon Dock (Crude 

dock). 

 On August 10, 2008, USES was on site with 46 employees and utilized; 10 trucks, 12 

steam cleaners, 8 trash pumps--2” gas, 40’petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 4 generator to 4KW, 4 submersible pump, to 1”, 4 24-

26” vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 3 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-

20’vessesl w/<50 hp motor, 6mil poly bags, 1 rope, 1⁄4”, (600’ spool), 300’ rope, 3/8”, 

(<1⁄2 spool), 1 digital camera, and 1 roll of duct tape. (See USES daily dated, 8/10/08, 

signed by , Exxon). The Claimant cleaned and decontaminated the 

following of oil: the sides of barges 28036, 27015, and 29034. (See USES tailgate 

safety meeting sheet).

 On August 11, 2008, USES was on site with 47 employees and utilized; 10 trucks, 13 

steam cleaners, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hoses, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 5 generators to 4KW, 5 submersible pumps to 1”, 5 24-

26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 1 20-23’ vessel w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessels w/<50 hp motor, 5 bags of sorbent boom, 300’ rope, 3/8” (<1⁄2 spool), 1 bale 

of sorbent pads, and 1 digital camera. (See USES daily dated, 8/11/08, signed by 

, Exxon). The Claimant washed the deck of Barge 27015, Dock 2, 

and Dock 4. (See USES tailgate safety meeting sheet). 

 On August 12, 2008, USES was on site with 45 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 13 

steam cleaners, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 4 generators 4KW, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, 5 24-26’ 

vessel w/150-300 hp motor, 2 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ vessel, 

w/<50 hp motor, 5 bags of sorbent boom, 300’ rope, 3/8”, (<1⁄2 spool), and 1 digital 

camera. (See USES daily dated, 8/12/08, signed by , Exxon). The 

Claimant cleaned and decontaminated the following of oil: vessels; K29007, CBC 
7019, and CBC 70. The oil contained and recovered from the clean up was prepared 

for disposal. (See USES tailgate safety meeting sheet). 

 On August 13, 2008, USES was on site with 47 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 13 

steam cleaners, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 

2”, 300’ containment boom, 5 generators to 4KW, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, 5 24-

26’ vessel w/150-300 hp motor, 2 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessel w/<50 hp motor, 5 bags of sorbent boom, 300’ of rope, 3/8”, (<1⁄2 spool), 1 

digital camera, and 1 roll of duct tape. (See USES signed daily dated, 8/13/08, signed 

by , Exxon). The Claimant cleaned and decontaminated the 

following of oil: barges; FMT 3112, FMT3038, FMT3023. The oil contained and 

recovered from the clean up was prepared for disposal. (See USES tailgate safety 

meeting sheet).

 On August 14, 2008, USES was on site with 46 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 5 

24-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 2 20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ 

vessel w/ <50 hp motor, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ 

petroleum hose, 2”, 300’ containment boom, 1 digital camera, 5 generators to 5KW, 

13 steam cleaners, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, and 5 bags of sorbent boom. (See 

USES daily dated, 8/14/08, signed by , Exxon). The Claimant 

continued to clean the Exxon Docks as well as to contain and recover oil and prepare 

it for disposal. (Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety). 

 On August 15, 2008, USES was on site with 47 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 5 

24’-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 2 20’-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16’-

20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ 

petroleum hose, 2”, 1 digital camera, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 

submersible pumps, to 1”, 3 bags of sorbent boom, 1’ rope, 3/8”, (600’ spool), 1 bale 

of sorbent pads, and extensions cords. (See USES daily dated 8/15/08, signed by 

, Exxon). USES cleaned and decontaminated the following of oil: 

barges FMT 3112, FMT 3038, and FMT 3023, as well as, the Smitty 18. 

 On August 16, 2008, USES was on site with 46 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 5 

24’-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 2 20’-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-

20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ 

petroleum hose, 2”, 1 digital camera, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 

submersible pumps, to 1”, and 3 bags of sorbent boom. (See USES daily dated, 

8/16/08, signed by , Exxon). USES cleaned and decontaminated the 

following of oil: barges K27015 and K 29035. The Claimant continued to clean the 

Exxon Docks as well as to contain and recover oil and prepare it for disposal. [Same 

question as SCE3] (Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety). 

 On August 17, 2008, USES was on site with 47 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 7 

24-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 40’ petroleum hose, 1”, 100’ petroleum hose, 2”, 1 digital camera, 5 

generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, and 8 bags of 

snare. (See USES daily dated, 8/17/08, signed by , Exxon). The 

Claimant cleaned and decontaminated the following of oil: Vessels K27015 and 

K29035. The Claimant continued to clean the Exxon Docks as well as to contain and 

recover oil and prepare it for disposal. (Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety). 
 On August 18, 2008, USES was on site with 45 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 

724-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 5 generators, to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, and 5 submersible pumps to 

1”. (See USES daily dated, 8/18/08, signed by , Exxon). The 

Claimant began to decontaminate USES Boats, and send 1000’ of contaminated boom 

to be decontaminated. (Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety) 

 On August 19, 2008, USES was on site with 36 employees and utilized; 9 trucks, 7 

24-26’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 submersible pumps, to 1”, 

and 3 rolls of poly sheeting. (See USES daily dated, 8/19/08, signed by 

, Exxon).The Claimant continued to decontaminate its boats & equipment. 

(Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety Meeting). 

 On August 20, 2008, USES was on site with 27 employees and utilized; 8 trucks, 7 

24-26’ vessels 2/150-300 hp motor, 10 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 4 rolls of duct tape, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 

submersible pumps, to 1” and 2 roles of poly sheeting. (See USES daily dated 

8/20/08, signed by , Exxon). The claimant continued to 

decontaminate its boats to be demobilized from the response area. (Reference, USES: 

Tailgate Safety Meeting). 

 On August 21, 2008, USES was on site with 17 employees and utilized; 7 trucks, 7 

20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 12 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 2 rolls of duct tape, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 

submersible pumps, to 1”, and 2 rolls of poly sheeting. (See USES daily dated, 

8/21/08, signed by Exxon). The claimant continued to 

decontaminate its boats to be demobilized from the response area. (Reference, USES: 

Tailgate Safety Meeting). 

 On August 22, 2008, USES was on site with 13 employees and utilized; 8 trucks, 7 

20-23’ vessels w/150-300 hp motor, 12 16-20’ vessels w/<50 hp motor, 8 trash 

pumps, 2” gas, 5 generators to 4KW, 13 steam cleaners, 5 submersible pump, to 1”, 

and 1 roll of poly sheeting. (See USES daily dated, 8/22/08, signed by 

, Exxon). The claimant continued to decontaminate its boats to be 

demobilized from the response area (Reference, USES: Tailgate Safety). 

The NPFC finds that the efforts undertaken by the Claimant meet the definition of “removal” 

as defined in 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30) which states that “‘remove’ or ‘removal’ means 

containment and removal of oil or a hazardous substance from water and shorelines or the 

taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the health or 

welfare, including but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, 

shorelines and beaches.” The NPFC has determined that all removal costs presented 

including but not limited to cleanup, decontaminating vessels, docks, and shorelines were 

actions consistent with and in accordance with the NCP and the costs for these actions 

reasonable, necessary, and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

During the adjudication, the NPFC collected additional documentation in support of response 

activities being performed in (Division B) ExxonMobil/Chalmette Refinery Area which was 

contaminated and required cleanup. The NPFC contacted NOAA and requested any 

documentation that they may have with regards to shoreline assessment and sample analysis 
that took place in particular at the ExxonMobil/Chalmette Refinery location. NOAA 

provided the NPFC with a document entitled “Sampling of Stranded Oil in Mississippi River 

Corridor – Barge DM932 Incident” dated 6 August 2008. Additionally, was information 

specific to twenty three (23) samples that had been taken, along with maps, chain of custody 

documents, a copy of NOAA’s preliminary plan for the sampling of stranded oil in the 

Mississippi River dated 27 July 2008, NOAA’s “Sampling of Water Column during Barge 

DM932 Incident” dated 25 August 2008, a draft of the final “Water Column Sampling Field 

Action Plan” dated 27 July 2008, and Shoreline Assessment Forms. (See Enclosure 1, 

Binder).

Some of the details specific to the additional documentation from NOAA are as follows; 

stranded oil samples were obtained from shorelines and batture areas in the Mississippi River 

corridor for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) characterization and fingerprinting to 

source oil during 7/29/08 through 8/4/08. The stranded oil samples were archived but may 

be analyzed in the future should the oil source which has been identified as American 

Commercial Lines Inc. Barge DM 932, ever be in question. A total of 23 stranded oil 

samples were collected by the Trustees (represented by NOAA and Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ)), and the RP, represented by Entrix. All stranded oil 

samples were split with the RP representative. Samples were taken to the incident command 

post by the NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator or designated Trustee representative and 

transferred to LSU Response & Chemical Assessment Team (Enclosure 1).17

Also, the evidence shows that before the DM 932 was salvaged from the Mississippi River, 

the three fuel tanks were lightered and source samples were collected from each of the fuel 

tanks by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard collected multiple split samples of source 

oil from each tank by the request of NOAA and various agencies. On August 5, 2008, a 

NOAA contractor transported two source oil samples from the command post to the LSU 

Response and Chemical Assessment Team for analysis and chemical characterization. The 

NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator used the chemical results from the source oil samples 

and other environmental samples to inform clean-up decisions associated with this incident. 

The State of Louisiana obtained samples from all three of DM 932 tanks and those samples 

are archived at LSU. (Enclosure 1)18

The scientific support for oil sampling in Division B is also evidenced in Enclosure 1 by the 

use of several charts that show oil degree, location, the length, width, distribution, thickness, 

and character of the oil taken from the Division B where Chalmette Refinery is located. The 

charts show which platform the oil sample was taken from as well as the associated 

shoreline. (Enclosure 1)19

During the adjudication, the NPFC also received information from Sector New Orleans 

containing information specific to Division B where the Chalmette Refinery was located. In 

the FOSC Documents file entitled “Miscellaneous”, there is a document called “Areas of 

Special Concern – 2008/08/07 which specifically names Chalmette Battlefield as an area of 

focus.

In the FOSC Documents file entitled “SCAT Sensitive Areas”, there is a table specific to 

Division B which includes the location of Chalmette Refinery, and lastly, in the FOSC 

 

17 See, Sampling of stranded oil in Mississippi River Corridor, and Table 1, List of 23 stranded oil samples.

18

 See, Sampling of source oil during Barge DM 932 Incident and U.S. Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Oil 

Sample Chain of Custody Record.

19

 See, Tab 3 in Enclosure 1.
Documents file entitled “Demurrage Facilities”, it specifies the Chalmette Refinery location 

as an affected location during the incident. The culmination of all of this information clearly 

establishes the Chalmette facility was impacted from the oil spilled by the DM 932 barge into 

the Mississippi River, upstream of mile marker mile marker 89.1 of the lower end of the 

Mississippi River, as a highly affected location by the DM 932 oil spill incident and that spill 

response was performed at this location as a direct result of the DM 932 oil spill incident. 

Finally, of the NPFC, sent an email dated February 25, 2010 to Damage 

Control man Chief (DCC) , a member of the U.S. Coast Guard Gulf Strike Team, 

who was present during response operations. On March 1, 2010, DC stated that 

he saw USES working within Division B, and that Coast Guard personnel were aware of 

USES performing response actions in Division B.20

To date, the NPFC has not received an official audit for this claim from ACL for USES 

invoice number 080140141A. The NPFC has adjudicated the claim based on the evidence 

that was submitted by Coast Guard and NOAA, the signed dailies and the claimant’s 

published rate schedule. 

The NPFC has approved costs that were invoiced and supported by daily sheets which also 

had signature(s) by an ExxonMobil/Chalmette Refinery representative in the absence of a 

designated Zone Manager which confirmed that the personnel, materials, equipment, and 

work had been performed. During the adjudication process, the NPFC obtained a statement 

from the FOSC, CAPT which clarified that the restricted hours were 

“suggested” for the purpose of heat stress and safety concerns, but the monitoring and 

determination of actual work hours resided with the Zone Managers.21

 In the case of hours 

worked at the Chalmette facility, hours were signed off by an Exxon representative in place 

of a DM932 assigned Zone Manager. 

In its review of Enclosure (2), the NPFC tabulated and approved the costs claimed as 

uncompensated removal costs for each day beginning on July 29, 2008 through August 22, 

2008 and constitutes uncompensated removal costs for a total of $882,305.29. 

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $882,305.29 as full compensation for 

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

claim# N08057-017. 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: 3/22/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

20

 See, Email dated March 1, 2010 from DC , Gulf Strike Team to , NPFC. 

21

 See, FOSC statement provided to the NPFC regarding restricted hours.