CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/1/2010 

Claim Number : 911002-0001

Claimant : Bollinger Quick Repair LLC 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $904.00

FACTS: 

 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On June 2, 2010 a rainbow sheen with a strong diesel odor was 

discovered on the Harvey Canal in Harvey, Louisiana, along the waterfront of Bollinger 

Quick Repair, LLC (Bollinger). The Harvey Canal is a navigable waterway of the United 

States. An employee of Bollinger reported the spill to the National Response Center 

(NRC).1

 It was determined that 0.2 gallons of oil was discharged. The source and 

Responsible Party (RP) are unknown. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Per the claim submission, “In an 

attempt to protect Bollinger property and the property of others, the facility manager 

utilized several 40 hour HAZWOPER trained Bollinger employees to remove the product 

from the water using absorbent pads.”2 The clean-up continued through June 3, 2010. 

Disposal was also completed. 

3. The Claim: On October 15, 2010, Bollinger submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

removal costs in the amount of $904.00. 

This claim consists of employee labor activity report; copies of American Recovery NonHazardous Waste Manifests; waste invoice; the completed Spill Response Notification 

Form; a copy of NRC Report #942577; and Coast Guard MISLE case documents 

obtained by the Claims Manager. 

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 

 

1

 See NRC Report # 942577. 

2

 See Bollinger Letter dated October 6, 2010 to the NPFC. 
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 National Contingency Plan (NCP). This determination is made in 

accordance with the Delegation Authority for Determination of Consistency with NCP 

for the payment of uncompensated removal cost claims under section 1012(a)(4), Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990. 

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 on time. 

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 costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below. 

B. Analysis: 

The NPFC Claims Manager has 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, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. 

The CG MISLE Case Report noted that 0.2 gallons of oil was discharged in the vicinity 

of Bollinger Quick Repair, LLC. The Claimant deployed nine employees to clean up the 

spill. Based on the determined amount of oil, the Claimant used excessive personnel 

resources. The NPFC will compensate the Claimant for four employees and the disposal 

costs of $500.00. For the work performed on June 2, 2010, the Claimant will be 

compensated for for 4 hours at $19.75 per hour; and for for 3 

hours at $26.00 for a total of $157.00. However, the Claimant will not be compensated 

for the work of for 2 hours at the rate of $19.75 per hour, or for the 3 hours 

work of , at the same rate, for a total of $98.75.

The Claimant will be compensated for the work performed on June 3, 2010 by 

 for 4 hours at $19.75 per hour; and by for 4 hours at $26.00 per hour 

for a total of $183.00. The Claimant will not be compensated for the 2 hours of work at 

the rate of $19.75 per hour by or for the 3 hours of work at the rate of 

$26.00 per hour by , for a total of $117.50. 

The NPFC will not reimburse the Claimant for the “air” clean-up work performed by 

Philip Dupre for 4 hours on June 2, 2010 at the rate of $19.75 per hour, nor for his 1.5 

hours on June 3, 2010, for a total of $108.63. 
Based on the NPFC’s denial of $324.88 of personnel costs, the NPFC determines that the 

OSLTF will pay $840.00 as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs 

incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #911002-0001. 

 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $840.00 as full compensation for the 

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

claim # 911002-0001. 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: $840.00

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/18/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: