CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 915092-0001 

Claimant : BP Exploration & Production, Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $1,453.98 

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: 

On September 8, 2014, the Coast Guard (CG) National Response Center (NRC) received 

notification of a large amount of surface residual tar balls (SRBs) washed up on the beach in 

Grand Isle, Jefferson Parish, LA, located on the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the 

United States.1

 The CG Gulf Coast Incident Management Team (CG GCIMT) was notified 

and responded to the report and found SRBs spread throughout Segments LAJF01-010-15, 

LAJF01-010-10, LAJF01-011-10 and LAJF01-016-10 / Zones GI 8a-13. As the SRBs were 

in a quantity that exceeded the CG’s capacity to mitigate, an email directive was issued to BP 

Exploration and Production (BP) to activate two (2) oil spill response organizations (OSROs) 

to respond for cleanup operations on Grand Isle as directed.2

B. Description of removal actions performed: 

On September 8, 2014, two (2) teams from Danos & Curole Marine Contractors (Danos) 

(BP’s Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) contractor) and , 

Clover Global Resources, LP, responded to the CG’s directive of response and met with two 

CG active duty personnel on-scene. Cleanup of what appeared to be SRBs of MC252 origin 

began and extended throughout Zones GI 8a-13 on the beach. Approximately 4.38 lbs of 

SRBs were recovered and properly disposed of at River Birch Landfill, Avondale, LA. 

During cleanup operations, CG representatives sampled an SRB from Segment LAJF01-010-

10 and Segment LAJF01-011-10. Both of these samples were split with and 

submitted to the CG Marine Safety Lab (CG MSL) for analysis.3

C. Sample Analysis: The samples collected by CG personnel were forwarded to the CG MSL 

on November 19, 2014 (CG MSL Case Number 15-021). In an Oil Sample Analysis Report 

dated November 25, 2014, the MSL determined that sample 15-021-1 and 15-021-2 

contained heavy petroleum oil with characteristics different from those samples of MC 252 

oil and that the samples were not derived from a common source.

4

 Based on those results, it 

has been determined that the incident is not associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

incident but rather a mystery spill.

1 See NRC Report #1094723 dated September 8, 2014.

2 See email directive to BP dated September 8, 2014.

3 See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated June 1, 2015.

4 See MSL Case # 15-021 dated November 25, 2014.

2 

 
D. The Claim: On June 1, 2015, BP submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC), asserting that the oil was not Deepwater Horizon oil and seeks 

reimbursement of its uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $1,453.98 for services 

provided on September 8, 2014, which included personnel and vehicle use. The claimed 

removal costs are 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 file.

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”.

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”. 33 USC § 2701(31). 

Removal costs include any 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).

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. 

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 

3
in exceptional circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have 

been coordinated with the FOSC.” [Emphasis added]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Findings of Fact: 

1. CG GCIMT as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for this incident, oversaw the removal 

actions and determined that the actions undertaken by BP’s contracted OSRO were 

consistent with the NCP as reported in NRC Report # 1094723; 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) 

and 2712(a)(4);5

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. §2701 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 costs;

4. The claim was submitted within the six year period of limitations for claims. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1);

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

and determined the costs presented were for actions in accordance with the NCP and that the 

costs for these actions were 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. 

As a result of the CG MSL analysis that the SRBs were not derived from MC 252 oil, this 

incident has been determined a mystery spill for which BP seeks reimbursement of its 

removal costs. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal 

costs incurred for this incident on September 8, 2014. BP represents that all costs paid by it 

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

Upon review of the claim submission, the NPFC has determined that the documentation 

presented to support the actions were reasonable, necessary, and performed in accordance 

with the response objectives as determined by the CG GCIMT and that the actions were also 

monitored by CG personnel. Additionally, MSL analysis confirms that the response was not 

associated with the MC252 oil spill.

C. Determined Amount: $1,453.98

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will offer to pay $1,453.98 as full 

compensation for the claimed removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

5 See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated June 1, 2015.

4

 
NPFC under claim 915092-0001. 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 the Claimant. 

 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/15/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

5