CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 8/27/2010 

Claim Number : 910125-0001

Claimant : Bollinger Marine Fabricators 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $3,103.33

FACTS: 

Incident: On May 18, 2010 personnel at Bollinger Marine Fabricators discovered diesel oil on the surface 

waters in four of its boat slips. Bollinger Marine Fabricators (BMF) is located along the Intracoastal 

Canal at Bayou Bouef near Mile Marker 88.5 on the Mississippi River. Bayou Bouef is a navigable 

waterway of the United States and subject to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and its governing regulations. 

The Facility Environmental Representative contacted the National Response Center to report the 

unknown sheen (report # 940608).1

The acting Federal on Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR) was USCG Marine Science 

Technician (MST3), of Marine Safety Unit, Morgan City, Louisiana. He visited BMF’s boat 

slips the day of the incident and took samples for identification. No match was found relating to any 

other discharged diesel oil and the investigation was closed.2

Description of Removal Activities for this Claim: 

1. BMF hired Environmental Equipment, Inc. (EEI) of 626 Hobson Street in Houma, Louisiana to 

drive to Amelia, La and clean the oil from its four boat slips. 

2. EEI responded with six employees who worked six hours. Two Equipment Operators at $35 per 

hour and four Technicians at $30 per hour for a total of $1,140.00. 

3. EEI brought its work truck, 20-foot utility trailer, and 18-foot workboat with outboard. 

4. EEI used three, 8-foot sorbent booms to contain the mystery oil. 

5. EEI applied 400 sorbent pads to remove the oil. 

6. EEI used one box of pillow bags. 

7. Four drums for $95 for disposal/ see waste manifest 

Claim: On August 11, 2010, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received BMF’s claim for 

uncompensated removal costs with a sum certain of $3,301.33. Part of the claim was BMF’s invoice 

from EEI of $2,740.00 and, the other part was for personnel time associated with Traci Dufrene in the 

amount of $363.33. 

NPFC’s review of the actual cost invoices and dailies focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable “disposal 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 are determined to be consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP) or directed by the (Federal On-Site Coordinator) FOSC; and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented and reasonable. 

 

1

 See email from to M. E dated August 25, 2010 in the file and PDF in CPS 

2

 See email dated August 17, 2010 in Part 5 of the claim file and PDF in CPS. 
The Claims Manager found EEI’s invoice for labor, equipment and materials matched its rate schedule 

dated May 10, 2010. All rates were effective at the time services were provided. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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]. 

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: 

Overview: 

1. MST3 provided FOSC coordination and took samples of the mystery oil. 

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), into 

navigable waters. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has indicated on the claim form (Optional 

OSLTF Claim Form) that no suit has been filed in court for its uncompensated removal costs. 

4. The claim was submitted within the statute of limitations for uncompensated removal costs. 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim and 

determined that most of the removal costs presented were for actions in accordance with the National 

Contingency Plan and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable under 

OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

Analysis: 
The NPFC 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 Part 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 services provided were billed in accordance with the rate 

schedule and that the response was consistent with the NCP. After review of the costs presented, the 

NPFC has determined that the 10.5 hours of personnel time for is denied as 

unsubstantiated. The Claimant has failed to provide a detailed description of the work performed by 

this person and has also failed to produce the pricing mechanism which indicates where the personnel 

labor cost was derived from. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur $2,740.00 of 

uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for 

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

#910125-001. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs 

incurred by the Claimant for this incident on May 18, 2010. The Claimant represents that all costs 

paid by the Claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the 

Claimant. 

Determined Amount: 

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $2,740.00 as full compensation for the reimbursable 

removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 910125-001. 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 Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $2,740.00 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/7/10 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: