3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N12061-0002 

Claimant: State of Louisiana

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $2,478.53 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On July 19, 2012, the CG National Response Center (NRC) was notified of 

the discharge of approximately 100 gallons of crude oil from a leaking valve attached to a 

storage tank located in a wetland area between Calcasieu Lake and the Gulf of Mexico in 

Cameron, LA. The storage tank is owned and operated by TF&B Oil Company, a petroleum 

wholesaler headquartered in Mandeville, LA. On July 26, 2016, the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), 

the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), and the Louisiana Oil Spill 

Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO) responded to the spill, discovering an oil sheen from the release 

of oil from the “flooded staging areas”.1 USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative 

(FOSCR), MSTC , responded to the spill site, authorizing the State of Louisiana 

to proceed with removal actions. 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: From July 26, 2012, through August 27, 

2012, “Representatives from Louisiana responding agencies were on scene working with USCG 

as part of the Unified Command to oversee the cleanup process.”3 , LDNR, 

produced the July 26, 2012, TF&B Oil Co. site visit survey; LDEQ personnel responded to the 

spill site, documenting containment efforts and directing the RP’s response efforts4

; LOSCO 

personnel attended site visits, participated in unified command meetings, coordinated with state 

agencies, tracked costs, and reviewed site visit material; and LDWF personnel arrived on July 

26, 2012, to assess wildlife impacts, coordinate response efforts, and compile cost 

documentation. 

Responsible Party: TF&B Oil Company (TF&B) is the owner and operator of the facility 

involved in the claimed oil spill incident. On July 19, 2012, World Environmental, on behalf of 

TF&B, contacted the CG NRC, “reporting a discharge of crude oil into containment and onto 

soil.”5

 By letter dated August 2, 2016, the NPFC issued TF&B an RP Notification Letter, 

notifying it of the pending claim with the State of Louisiana.6 To date, the NPFC has received 

no correspondence from the RP. 

 

1 See July 2012 Oil Spill Response Summary dated July 26, 2012. 2 See United States Coast Guard Authorization to Proceed with Removal and Disposal form dated August 27, 2012. 3 See Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated July 14, 2016. 4

See Oil Spill Little Chenier Field Meeting Minutes dated July 26, 2012. 5 See CG NRC report dated july 19, 2012. 6 See RP notification letter dated August 2, 2016.
4

The Claim: On July 22, 2016, the State of Louisiana submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

costs totaling $2,478.53.

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 -
5

(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. MSTC CG Sector Lake Charles, as the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) for this incident, determined that the actions 

undertaken by the State of Louisiana were consistent with the NCP. 33 U.S.C. §§ 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);7

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 within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1); 

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 to be consistent with the NCP or 

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

The NPFC has determined that the majority of the costs incurred by the Claimant for this 

incident were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the incident. Upon review of 

the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC has determined that the costs were billed in 

 

7 See United States Coast Guard Authorization to Proceed with Removal and Disposal form dated August 27, 2012
6

accordance with the rate schedule that was in place at the time the services were rendered and 

were determined by the NPFC and the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP. The costs denied by 

the NPFC are in the total amount of $22.95 for $.05 in costs affiliated with unidentified 

differences, $16.08 in costs affiliated with unsupported response supplies and purchases, and 

$6.82 in mileage costs claimed in excess of the 2012 IRS Standard Mileage Rate of 55.5 cents 

per mile.8 9

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $2,455.58 as full compensation for the 

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

N12061-0002. 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: $2,455.58

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: August 31, 2016

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

8 See IRS 2012 Standard Mileage Rates, available at https://www.irs.gov/uac/irs-announces-2012-standard-mileagerates-most-rates-are-the-same-as-in-july 9 See NPFC spreadsheet for claim N12061-0002.