CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/10/2009 

Claim Number : 910030-001

Claimant : Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $7,372.03 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On October 31, 2008, Mr. with the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Mr. of Oil Mop, LLC 

(OMI) went to visit the site of an overturned truck that was reported to have been leaking 

diesel fuel into a large drainage ditch on Louisiana Highway 51, four miles from the city 

of Manchac.1

 The spill contaminated approximately 100’ of a drainage ditch that led to 

larger creeks both north and south of the spill site, which led to the waterway under 

Interstate Highway 55, which led to Manchac Pass, ultimately draining into Lakes 

Maurepas and Ponchartrain, navigable waterways in the US.2 OMI was hired for cleanup 

and removal of the fuel and contaminated soil.

The Responsible Party has been determined to be CDP, Inc. (CDP), the owner of the 

overturned truck. CDP has not paid the OMI invoices and is in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy 

litigation as evidenced by the NPFC Optional Claim Form completed by the Claimant at 

the time the claim was submitted to the NPFC. OMI did not submit a proof of claim to 

the bankruptcy court for CDP.3

Description of removal actions performed: On October 31, 2008, the OMI response 

team placed sorbent boom in the ditch at each end of the spill in order to contain it. After 

the vac truck arrived, the team used a wash pump to clean up the diesel. Additionally, the 

contaminated soil was removed and replaced with new soil. OMI informed the DEQ 

when cleanup and removal activities were completed on November 1, 2008.4

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 $7,372.03 for the services provided October 31 through November 1, 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, a copy of OMI 

contracted rate schedule, copies of the Disposal of Non-Hazardous Waste Manifests, a 

copy of the OMI Supervisor’s Report, a copy of EASI Laboratory report, a copy of the 

United States Bankruptcy Court Notice of Hearing, photographs and internal email 

correspondence. 

 

1

See, OMI Supervisor’s report, submitted with the claim on 10/22/2009 and email from Mr. to Ms. 

, NPFC, on 11/10/2009. 

2

See, OMI Supervisor’s report, submitted with the claim on 10/22/2009 

3

 See, email from Mr. , NPFC, on 11/04/2009. 

4

See, OMI Supervisor’s report, submitted with the claim on 10/22/2009
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 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. 

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 response actions that 

were overseen by the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), LA DEQ, on October 31, 2008. 

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 

$7,372.03 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 #910030-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

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

31 through November 1, 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 $7,372.03 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910030-001. 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: $7,372.03

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/12/09

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: