CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 5/03/2010 

Claim Number : N08057-020

Claimant : Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $1,324,624.11 

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. 

II. Responsible Party

American Commercial Lines LLC (ACL) owned the barge at the time of the incident and is a 

responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 

III. The Claimant and the Claim

As a result of the incident, Oil Mop, LLC (Oil Mop or OMI), provided response services under 

contract with ACL.1 On April 23, 2009, OMI submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of the response services, incurred by OMI, in 

the amount of $1,324,624.11 for specified dates during the time period of July 31, 2008 through 

November 6, 2008 during which, the Claimant worked as a subcontractor to Summit 

Contracting, LLC.2

Summit Contracting, LLC (Summit Contracting) is a civil engineering and environmental 

services provider that entered into a strategic partnership with ACL in May 2007. During this 

incident, Summit Contracting was the prime contractor to OMI that was in charge of the Central 

Supply station for this incident and Oil Mop made daily purchases for the station. 

On September 14, 2009, Mr. John Lane of Maritime Alliance Group, Inc. (MAGI) which is part 

of the ACL audit team, provided the NPFC with its audit of the OMI invoices which are the 

subject of this claim, except that the OMI invoices were submitted to ACL via Summit 

Contracting as OMI’s prime contractor for the services rendered under the OMI invoices for this 

claim submission. 

The NPFC sent the Responsible Party (RP) notification letter, dated May 14, 2009, to Ms 

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

ACL – External Counsel.3 The invoices which are the subject of this claim were presented to 

ACL via Summit Contracting as OMI’s Prime contractor of the Central Supply station for 

payment on or about July 31, 2008; August 14, 2008; August 18, 2008; August 28, 2008; 

 

1

See, Master Service Agreement between American Commercial Barge Line L.L.C, and Oil Mop, L.L.C., dated 

July 23, 2002. American Commercial Barge Line L.L.C, is a wholly owned subsidiary of ACL. 

2

See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form, signed by Mr. , Accounting Manager for OMI on April 3, 2009. 

3

See, NPFC letter to ACL, dated May 14, 2009. 
September 11, 2008; and November 6, 2008.4

 ACL has made a payment to Summit Contracting 

for costs associated with one of the OMI invoices included in this claim in the amount of 

$385,763.77 on November 4, 2008 via check # 16232.5

 ACL has acknowledged receipt of all 

OMI invoices that are subject of this claim by way of ACL’s audit. (See Enclosure 1 – ACL 

audit). OMI has confirmed to the NPFC that all costs have been paid for the materials and 

services provided which are inclusive in OMI’s invoices 

IV. The Audits

During the incident, the Claimant provided response resources and services under its contract 

with ACL. The services provided by the Claimant were acknowledged by ACL designated Zone 

Managers, who acted as the Qualified Individual(s) representatives for ACL in various zones on 

given dates. Specifically, the Claimant submitted daily sheets to the respective Zone Manager(s) 

which listed the labor and materials/equipment provided by the Claimant for each day of the 

response in a specific zone location. The Zone Manager(s) approved the materials/equipment 

and labor identified on each daily by signing the document. Beneath each signature, the Zone 

Manager made the notation “subject to audit.”

During this response incident, a process was established for paying Oil Mop’s invoices. Initially, 

Oil Mop submitted its invoices to ACL and in accordance with the Master Service Agreement 

(MSA) that was in place between Oil Mop and ACL, the MSA stated that all invoices are due 

fifteen (15) days from the date of the invoice, and in the event ACL disputed one or more items 

in an invoice, ACL shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of such invoice, notify Oil Mop in 

writing of the item or items under dispute and the reasons. The MSA stated that undisputed 

amounts will be paid within fifteen (15) days of ACL’s receipt.6

(Emphasis added). 

Having reviewed the invoices, the NPFC determined that this process was not followed in 

accordance with the MSA. We found that ACL and its auditors made initial payments on some 

invoices, denied amounts on some invoices, failed to provide in some instances, any detailed 

audit information to OMI for denied costs and also approved payment amounts on some 

invoices, which, to date, have not been paid to Oil Mop by ACL as agreed to in the MSA.7

It is 

important to note that the NPFC received this summary sheet when the auditor for ACL 

responded to the NPFC’s RP notification letter(s) by way of submitting their audit results and 

accompanying documentation. 

For the audit, the NPFC found that ACL auditors focused on whether the paperwork was 

complete as determined by their standards, whether the costs were properly supported in 

accordance with their standards, and whether the costs were operationally reasonable and 

necessary according to their standards. During this response incident, ACL held negotiation 

discussions with the response contractors including the Claimant OMI and requested special 

pricing reductions in exchange for a prompt payment. OMI initially agreed to certain price 

reductions in exchange for prompt payment that ACL did not honor which resulted in the 

Claimant presenting its claim to the NPFC. As a result of ACL not paying or resolving nonpayment issues promptly, OMI revised its billing so that it was in accordance with the original 

MSA pricing schedule between OMI and ACL. All invoices reflecting the original pricing 

schedule were presented to ACL as required by regulation. 

 

4

See, Oil Mop, LLC – Summit Transaction Activity sheet produced by ACL and submitted to the NPFC on or 

about April 5, 2010 by Mr. . 

5

Id. 

6

See, supra, note 1.

7

See, ACL Summary sheet for OMI payments, provided by of ACL on 9/14/09. 
V. Applicable Law 

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is available, 

pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)(4) and 2713 of OPA 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 [NCP] 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 such an incident.” 33 USC § 2701(31).

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). 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The FOSC coordination has been established under the Federal Project by way of Incident 

Action Plans and United States Coast Guard (USCG) Pollution Reports.

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.

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 OMI, prior to the submission of 

the claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and the RP has provided a 

complete copy of their Audit of costs presented.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that the majority of 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 with the exception of denied costs itemized in 

the attached Summary of Vendors spreadsheet: (See, Enclosure 1 – ACL audit which 

incorporates NPFC audit).
B. Analysis:

The NPFC reviewed the actual cost invoice and executed purchase request form to confirm that 

the Claimant had incurred the 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 Claimant OMI stated that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by 

the Claimant for this incident for the time period of July 31, 2008 through November 6, 2008 

when OMI worked as a subcontractor to Summit Contracting. The Claimant represents that all 

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

by the Claimant.

The NPFC Claims Manager has confirmed that the materials provided by the Claimant were 

ordered and signed off by the designated Zone Managers in the order forms provided by OMI 

and confirmed in the ACL audit. While the Incident Action Plans (IAPs) are helpful in 

corroborating actions that were taking place in the field at any given point in time and were 

utilized as part of the adjudication process, it is important to note that every action taken during 

response is not fully captured in IAPs or the Pollution Reports. The NPFC Claims Manager also 

cross referenced claim submission information to the USCG’s database of files that were 

associated with this oil spill incident and provided to the NPFC by USCG Sector New Orleans 

via tape.

As detailed in Enclosure (1), the NPFC reviewed the detailed comments in the Financial Audit 

performed by ACL’s auditor. The NPFC denied some claimed costs of OMI for lack of 

documentation or because ACL had demonstrated that it paid the prime contractor, Summit 

Contracting, for some of the costs claimed by OMI. In other instances, OMI had documented 

costs which were denied by ACL in its Financial Audit. Having reviewed such costs, the NPFC 

approved these costs over ACL’s denial in the Financial Audit because some of the costs had 

been ordered, approved, and documented by designated Zone Manager(s) for ACL when these

representative(s) signed the Claimant’s order forms. One of the main purposes of a Spill 

Management Team such as the appointed Zone Managers for ACL was to confirm that the goods 

and services billed on a given day at a given location for a given time period had actually been 

provided and accounted for. Moreover, because the services and materials/equipment listed on 

the order forms were provided pursuant to a contract between ACL and OMI with specified 

rates, NPFC further finds that OMI has satisfied its burden of showing that the amounts claimed 

were reasonable and necessary. As a result, NPFC finds and approves that these costs are 

eligible for payment under OPA.

In its review in Enclosure (1), the NPFC tabulated and approved the costs claimed as 

uncompensated removal costs in Column 1 for each period beginning on July 31, 2008 through 

November 6, 2008. In addition, Column 1 includes the amount approved by ACL but, to date, is 

unpaid and constitutes uncompensated removal costs for a total in Column 1 of $1,311,295.72.

Column 2 lists the adjudicated amounts which the NPFC denied in the amount of $13,328.40. 

Column 3 lists the amounts which were denied by ACL and associated with some of the costs 
requested in this claim. The itemized breakdown of denied costs which is addressed in the 

attached ACL audit is identified as Enclosure (1). 

The NPFC incorporated columns within the ACL audit so that a line-by-line comparison and 

determination could be made and easily identified. The overall denial summary from Column 2 

is as follows: 

OMI Invoice # N0808-105 – 8/18/08 – denied amount of $ 743.65

OMI Invoice # N0808-110 – 8/18/08 – denied amount of $ 62.50

OMI Invoice # N0808-048 – 8/14/08 – denied amount of $ 58.85

OMI Invoice # N0808-050 – 8/14/08 – denied amount of $ 470.80

OMI Invoice # N0808-189 – 8/28/08 – denied amount of $ 21.80

OMI Invoice # N0808-190 – 8/28/08 – denied amount of $ (0.01) 

OMI Invoice # N0808-194 – 8/28/08 – denied amount of $ 6,227.40

OMI Invoice # N0808-196 – 8/28/08 – denied amount of $ 64.19

OMI Invoice # N0809-033 – 9/11/08 – denied amount of $ 963.00

OMI Invoice # N0807-194 – 7/31/08 – denied amount of $ 243.62

OMI Invoice # N0811-005 – 11/6/08 – denied amount of $ 4,472.60

TOTAL NPFC DENIED COSTS: $13,328.40

Accordingly, the Claimant OMI’s sum certain of $1,324,624.12 minus the total amount the 

NPFC denied (Column 2 - $13,328.40) equals the total uncompensated removal costs 

(Column 1 $1,311,295.72) which is due to the Claimant OMI.

On this basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant incurred $1,311,295.72 

of uncompensated removal costs and that this 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# N08057-020.

Lastly, it is important to note that $1,287,114.91 of the approved costs by ACL as corroborated 

in the Audit Summary Sheet provided by the Claimant OMI to the NPFC remains unpaid at the 

time of this determination and therefore has been incorporated in the sums approved by the 

NPFC as OPA compensable removal costs. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,311,295.72 as full compensation for 

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

# N08057-020. 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: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: