CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 12/30/2009 

Claim Number : 910039-001

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

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $21,886.34 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector Houston Case # 385445,1

reports that on November 16, 2007, the Tekoil and Gas Gulf Coast F-1 Platform 

discharged approximately one gallon of crude oil into Trinity Bay, a navigable waterway 

of the US. Additionally, upon investigation, a leak was discovered at this platform, 

posing a substantial threat to this same waterway. 

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on November 16, 

2007 at approximately 4:28 PM CST via report # 854784 by Mr. , of 

O’Brien’s Oil Pollution Services (O’Brien’s).2

 The discharge originated from a flow line 

that was being pressurized for repairs. When the leak was found, the line was shut off 

and repairs were made.3

 O’Brien’s was the spill management firm hired by the 

Responsible Party (RP), Tekoil and Gas Gulf Coast (Tekoil), to facilitate cleanup and 

necessary repairs. O’Brien’s, in turn, hired out United States Environmental Services, 

L.L.C. (USES) to provide emergency environmental cleanup for this incident.4

Description of removal actions performed: On November 16, 2007, USES was 

contacted by O’Brien’s regarding the spill/leak into Trinity Bay. USES was requested to 

provide emergency cleanup and they were mobilized to the spill site at approximately 

4:30 PM. When USES personnel arrived, there was no oil found in the area; however, 

USES personnel did work to retrieve the absorbent boom that had been placed in the spill 

area.5

 

On November 17, 2009, USES personnel deployed absorbent boom in preparation to 

repair the leaking pipes. After standing by for the repairs, the boom was gathered and 

disposed of in plastic bags. Two days later, on November 19, 2007, USES returned to the 

spill site and re-deployed absorbent boom on the water. Four leaks were repaired and no 

oil was spilled in the process. By November 20, 2007, all vessels were cleaned and 

returned to service by USES. One roll-of box of waste was accumulated and sent for 

disposal.6

 

1

See, Sector Houston’s Coast Guard Case # 385445 opened 12/10/2007

2

 See, NRC report # 854784, dated 11/16/2007 

3

 See, USCG Sector Houston Investigator Statement, written by MST2 , USCG Sector 

Houston/Galveston Enforcement Summary # 3117603 and Sector Houston’s Coast Guard Case # 385445, 

opened 12/10/2007 

4

See, USES Emergency Response Report, prepared for the O’Brien’s Group on 11/19/2007 

5

See, USES Emergency Response Report, prepared for the O’Brien’s Group on 11/19/2007

6

See, USES Emergency Response Report, prepared for the O’Brien’s Group on 11/19/2007
3. The Claim: On December 7, 2009, USES submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

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

$21,886.34 for the services provided November 16 through November 20, 2007. 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, a copy of MISLE 

Case # 385445, a copy of NRC Report # 854784, a copy of the USCG Sector Houston 

Investigator Statement filled out by PO , a copy of the USCG Witness 

Statement filled out by Ms. , a copy of the Enforcement Summary for 

Enforcement Activity # 3117603, a copy of the Notice of Federal Interest issued by PO 

, a copy of USES Project # 093-07-0236 Emergency Response Report, a 

copy of the Disposal of Non-Hazardous Waste Manifests and 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 Houston’s Case Report # 385445.

7

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:

 

7

See, Sector Houston’s Coast Guard Case # 385445 opened 12/10/2007
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 USCG Sector Houston did in fact perform a site 

assessment on November 16, 2007. The Claims Manager validated the costs 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 

$21,886.34 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 #910039-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

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

November 16 through November 20, 2007. 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 $21,886.34 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910039-001. 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: $21,886.34

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: