Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Update on Federal Financial Risks and Claims Processing
Gao ID: GAO-11-397R April 18, 2011
On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on BP America Production Company's (BP) leased mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon. The total cost to clean up the massive and unprecedented oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon explosion (including costs to help pay for the spill's adverse impact on businesses and individuals in the region) are yet unknown, but have been estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. The extent to which the federal government will ultimately be required to pay costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains unclear. The complex legal framework in place for oil spill liability and response funding will play an integral role in determining who is responsible and will ultimately pay the costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In this regard, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA), which Congress enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, authorized use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) to pay for certain oil spill cleanup costs and damages using federal tax revenues for immediate response costs and when the responsible parties cannot be identified or do not pay. OPA also provided that the federal government may subsequently seek reimbursement for these costs from responsible parties. The Fund, which is administered by Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), is subject to a $1-billion cap on the total amount of expenditures per incident. NPFC designated two BP subsidiaries--BP Exploration and Production and its guarantor, BP Corporation North America, Inc.--and five other companies as responsible parties for Deepwater Horizon oil spill related claims. Shortly after the spill, at the direction of NPFC, BP began to receive and process all claims against responsible parties. In June 2010, at the urging of the White House and Department of Justice, BP established a new claims processing facility--the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF). GCCF began operations on August 23, 2010, and is responsible for handling claims from individuals and businesses for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. For those claims submitted to the GCCF that are rejected or not paid within 90 days, claimants may file OPA-compensable claims with NPFC to request reimbursement from the Fund. BP also established an irrevocable trust (Trust), to which BP is to provide a total of $20 billion by 2014, primarily for the purpose of paying GCCF and other claims related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Trust is to pay some OPA-compensable claims and some other. claims for personal injuries that are not OPA-compensable, but for which BP would be liable under other federal or state laws, such as the Jones Act or state oil pollution acts. In November 2010, we reported on our preliminary assessment of the potential financial risks to the federal government associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup costs. The attached briefing provides information updated since our preliminary assessment. For this briefing our objectives are to provide updated information on (1) the financial risks to the federal government associated with the cap on expenditures from the Fund and (2) claims submitted to and reviewed NPFC and GCCF, and those paid by GCCF. We also provide an update of the status of agency actions to respond to the recommendations made in our November 2010 report. This is the second in a planned series of three reports on our work in this area. Our third report, planned for the summer of 2011, is intended to be a capping report with an updated assessment of: (1) the financial risks to the federal government associated with the Fund; (2) NPFC Fund cost reimbursements and claims and related processes; and (3) the federal framework for monitoring and oversight of responsible parties' actions to pay costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill..
With reported Fund costs of about $629.5 million as of March 31, 2011, NPFC had obligated or incurred costs that could result in over 60 percent of the amount available under the Fund's statutory $1-billion-per-incident-expenditure-cap. If, regardless of any reimbursements from responsible parties, total Fund expenditures exceed the $1-billion cap, agencies may be required to rely on reallocating their appropriated funding to cover costs they incur or obtain supplemental funding. In addition, agencies may be unable to cover some of their costs and NPFC would be unable to pay any additional claims to individuals and businesses related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We are reiterating our prior matter that Congress should consider changing the calculation of expenditures made against the Fund's $1-billion- per-incident-expenditure-cap to take into account reimbursements from responsible parties. Ultimately, the federal government's financial risk will continue to be closely linked with actions taken by the responsible parties to pay such costs. To date, BP has continued to fund the Trust established in August 2010 to pay for Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims as agreed. With respect to claims processing, NPFC has taken a number of steps to monitor the GCCF's claims processing in planning for contingencies to help ensure it can effectively process any future surges in the number of claims it receives as a result of rejected GCCF claims that NPFC may receive for adjudication related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These actions helped NPFC to process a sharp increase in the number of claims that individuals and businesses submitted to NPFC in December 2010. NPFC officials told us they monitor ongoing GCCF activities in order to forecast and take actions to mitigate potential surges in the number of claims that may come to NPFC for adjudication. As of March 2011, GCCF had established four types of claims payments--Emergency Advanced Payments, Quick Payments (Final), Interim Payments, and Full Review Payments (Final). As of March 31, 2011, GCCF had paid approximately $3.7 billion on 281,308 claims and denied over 4,000 claims. In response to our previous recommendations, NPFC reported that it plans to update its policies and procedures in August and October 2011 to address three of the four recommendations made in our November 2010 report. These recommendations were directed at helping NPFC establish and maintain effective cost reimbursement policies and procedures for the Fund and update NPFC's current policies to reflect current organization, structure and management's directives. For the other recommendation, NPFC contends that its current procedures, which allow for invoices sent to responsible parties to serve as notification for cost recovery, provide adequate documentation of responsible party designation. However, NPFC intends to review, clarify, and update its designation procedures by October 31, 2011. We believe that clarification of this process is necessary. As stated in our November 2010 report, we found that NPFC's existing procedures for notifying responsible parties, including the use of an invoice as notification of "responsible party" designation, were not clear. For example, NPFC sent an invoice for reimbursement to one of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill responsible parties that it considered as formal notification of the entity's financial responsibilities. However, a representative of the entity later publicly stated it had not received notification of a "responsible party" designation.
GAO-11-397R, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Update on Federal Financial Risks and Claims Processing
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-397R
entitled 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Update on Federal Financial
Risks and Claims Processing' which was released on April 18, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-397R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 18, 2011:
Congressional Requesters:
Subject: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Update on Federal Financial
Risks and Claims Processing:
On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on BP America Production
Company's (BP) leased mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon.
The total cost to clean up the massive and unprecedented oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon explosion
(including costs to help pay for the spill's adverse impact on
businesses and individuals in the region) are yet unknown, but have
been estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. The extent to which
the federal government will ultimately be required to pay costs
associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains unclear.
The complex legal framework in place for oil spill liability and
response funding will play an integral role in determining who is
responsible and will ultimately pay the costs associated with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In this regard, the Oil Pollution Act of
1990,[Footnote 1] as amended (OPA), which Congress enacted after the
Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, authorized use of the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund (Fund) to pay for certain oil spill cleanup costs and
damages using federal tax revenues for immediate response costs and
when the responsible parties cannot be identified or do not pay. OPA
also provided that the federal government may subsequently seek
reimbursement for these costs from responsible parties.[Footnote 2]
The Fund, which is administered by Coast Guard's National Pollution
Funds Center (NPFC), is subject to a $1-billion cap on the total
amount of expenditures per incident.
NPFC designated two BP subsidiaries--BP Exploration and Production and
its guarantor, BP Corporation North America, Inc.--and five other
companies as responsible parties for Deepwater Horizon oil spill
related claims. Shortly after the spill, at the direction of NPFC, BP
began to receive and process all claims against responsible parties.
In June 2010, at the urging of the White House and Department of
Justice, BP established a new claims processing facility--the Gulf
Coast Claims Facility (GCCF). GCCF began operations on August 23,
2010, and is responsible for handling claims from individuals and
businesses for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
For those claims submitted to the GCCF that are rejected or not paid
within 90 days, claimants may file OPA-compensable claims with NPFC to
request reimbursement from the Fund.
BP also established an irrevocable trust (Trust), to which BP is to
provide a total of $20 billion by 2014, primarily for the purpose of
paying GCCF and other claims related to the:
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[Footnote 3] The Trust is to pay some OPA-
compensable claims and some other claims for personal injuries that
are not OPA-compensable, but for which BP would be liable under other
federal or state laws, such as the Jones Act or state oil pollution
acts.[Footnote 4]
In November 2010,[Footnote 5] we reported on our preliminary
assessment of the potential financial risks to the federal government
associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup costs. The
attached briefing provides information updated since our preliminary
assessment. For this briefing our objectives are to provide updated
information on (1) the financial risks to the federal government
associated with the cap on expenditures from the Fund and (2) claims
submitted to and reviewed NPFC and GCCF, and those paid by GCCF. We
also provide an update of the status of agency actions to respond to
the recommendations made in our November 2010 report. This is the
second in a planned series of three reports on our work in this area.
Our third report, planned for the summer of 2011, is intended to be a
capping report with an updated assessment of: (1) the financial risks
to the federal government associated with the Fund; (2) NPFC Fund cost
reimbursements and claims and related processes; and (3) the federal
framework for monitoring and oversight of responsible parties' actions
to pay costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Scope and Methodology:
To provide an update on the financial risks to the federal government
and the Fund, we obtained and summarized available data from NPFC on
obligated and actual costs incurred and reviewed publicly available
financial information of responsible parties through March 2011. We
also obtained updated data on reported costs incurred in relation to
the cap on expenditures from the Fund.
In order to update information about claims submitted and reviewed by
NPFC and GCCF, we used available NPFC and GCCF claims data through
March 2011, to describe the number and types of claims filed by
individuals and businesses against the Trust and the Fund, and the
number and dollar amounts claimed, reviewed, and paid. We also
obtained information on NPFC's claims contingency planning for
handling potential surges in claims submitted related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. We also obtained information from NPFC officials
about the status of the recommendations made in our November 2010
report.
We conducted our work from November 2010 to March 2011 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to meet our stated objectives and that we
discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information
and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions.
We performed limited procedures to determine the Fund expenditures
reported were reasonable for our reporting purposes.
Results in Brief:
With reported Fund costs of about $629.5 million as of March 31, 2011,
NPFC had obligated or incurred costs that could result in over 60
percent of the amount available under the Fund's statutory $1-billion-
per-incident-expenditure-cap.[Footnote 6] If, regardless of any
reimbursements from responsible parties, total Fund expenditures
exceed the $1-billion cap, agencies may be required to rely on
reallocating their appropriated funding to cover costs they incur or
obtain supplemental funding. In addition, agencies may be unable to
cover some of their costs and NPFC would be unable to pay any
additional claims to individuals and businesses related to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We are reiterating our prior matter that
Congress should consider changing the calculation of expenditures made
against the Fund's $1-billion-per-incident-expenditure-cap to take
into account reimbursements from responsible parties. Ultimately, the
federal government's financial risk will continue to be closely linked
with actions taken by the responsible parties to pay such costs. To
date, BP has continued to fund the Trust established in August 2010 to
pay for Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims as agreed.
With respect to claims processing, NPFC has taken a number of steps to
monitor the GCCF's claims processing in planning for contingencies to
help ensure it can effectively process any future surges in the number
of claims it receives as a result of rejected GCCF claims that NPFC
may receive for adjudication related to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. These actions helped NPFC to process a sharp increase in the
number of claims that individuals and businesses submitted to NPFC in
December 2010. NPFC officials told us they monitor ongoing GCCF
activities in order to forecast and take actions to mitigate potential
surges in the number of claims that may come to NPFC for adjudication.
As of March 2011, GCCF had established four types of claims payments--
Emergency Advanced Payments, Quick Payments (Final), Interim Payments,
and Full Review Payments (Final). As of March 31, 2011, GCCF had paid
approximately $3.7 billion on 281,308 claims and denied over 4,000
claims.
In response to our previous recommendations, NPFC reported that it
plans to update its policies and procedures in August and October 2011
to address three of the four recommendations made in our November 2010
report. These recommendations were directed at helping NPFC establish
and maintain effective cost reimbursement policies and procedures for
the Fund and update NPFC's current policies to reflect current
organization, structure and management's directives. For the other
recommendation, NPFC contends that its current procedures, which allow
for invoices sent to responsible parties to serve as notification for
cost recovery, provide adequate documentation of responsible party
designation. However, NPFC intends to review, clarify, and update its
designation procedures by October 31, 2011. We believe that
clarification of this process is necessary. As stated in our November
2010 report, we found that NPFC's existing procedures for notifying
responsible parties, including the use of an invoice as notification
of "responsible party" designation, were not clear. For example, NPFC
sent an invoice for reimbursement to one of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill responsible parties that it considered as formal notification of
the entity's financial responsibilities. However, a representative of
the entity later publicly stated it had not received notification of a
"responsible party" designation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of our briefing to the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) management for
comment. DHS commented that NPFC continues to disagree with what it
understands to be GAO's concern that a notice of designation of a
discharge source issued to some responsible parties, but not to all
responsible parties that are eventually identified, risks confusion
and breakdowns in the claims management and cost reimbursement
process. However, it also commented that NPFC intends to review,
clarify, and update its designation procedures on or by October 31,
2011. DOJ commented that GAO has not identified any statutory
responsibility that NPFC failed to fulfill under OPA Title 1, nor
identified any policy basis for our responsible party notification
recommendation.
We did not assert that NPFC did not comply with law or policy.
Nonetheless, as we previously reported, clarification of responsible
party designation procedures is necessary to avoid possible confusion
over responsibility and breakdowns in the claims management and cost
reimbursement process. Consequently, we are encouraged that NPFC
intends to update its procedures to clarify responsible party
designations.
We are sending copies of this correspondence to the appropriate
congressional committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary
of Homeland Security, the Director of NPFC, the Attorney General of
the United States, and to other interested parties. This
correspondence will also be available at no charge on our Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this
correspondence, please contact Susan Ragland at (202) 512-8486 or
raglands@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report include
Kim McGatlin, Assistant Director; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant General
Counsel; Jehan Abdel-Gawad; Donald Holzinger; Mark Kaufman; Jason
Kelly; Chari Nash-Cannaday; Donell Ries; and Doris Yanger.
Signed by:
Susan Ragland:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
Enclosure:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Carper:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Oversight:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery:
Committee on Homeland Security:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Michael C. Burgess:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Update on Federal Financial
Risks and Claims Processing:
Briefing for Congressional Requesters:
Overview:
Introduction;
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology;
Background;
Results in Brief;
- Risk that Total Expenditures from the Fund Will Reach the Cap;
- Claims-Processing Status Update;
- Status of Prior Recommendations;
Conclusions;
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation.
Introduction:
On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on BP America Production
Company's (BP) leased mobile offshore drilling unit, Deepwater
Horizon. The total cost to clean up the massive and unprecedented oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon explosion,
as well as costs to help pay for the spill's adverse impact on
businesses and individuals in the region, are not yet known, but have
been estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. Further, the extent
to which the federal government will ultimately be required to
pay any of the costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
remains unclear.
In November 2010,[Footnote 7] we reported on our preliminary
assessment of the potential financial risks to the federal government
associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup costs. The
overall objectives for our work in this area are to assess (1)
financial risks to the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund)
and the federal government as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, (2) the Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center's (NPFC)
cost reimbursement and claims policies and procedures for Deepwater
Horizon oil spill costs, and (3) the framework for federal monitoring
and oversight efforts over the responsible parties for the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, including federal efforts to oversee BP's and the
Gulf Coast Claims Facility's (GCCF) Deepwater Horizon oil-spill claims
payments.
Objectives:
This briefing provides information updated since our preliminary
assessment in November 2010. For this briefing, our objectives are to
provide updated information related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
on:
(1) the financial risks to the federal government associated with the
cap on expenditures from the Fund and;
(2) claims submitted to and reviewed by NPFC and GCCF, and those paid
by GCCF.
We also provide an update of the status of agency actions to respond
to the recommendations made in our November 2010 report.
This is the second in a planned series of three reports on our work in
this area.
Our third report, planned for the summer of 2011, is intended to be a
capping report addressing our overall objectives.
Scope and Methodology:
To provide an update on the financial risks to the federal government,
we obtained and summarized available data from NPFC on obligated and
actual costs incurred and reviewed publicly available financial
information of responsible parties through March 2011. We also
obtained updated data on reported costs incurred in relation to the
cap on expenditures from the Fund.
In order to update information about claims submitted and reviewed by
NPFC and GCCF, we used available NPFC and GCCF claims data through
March 2011, to describe the number and types of claims filed by
individuals and businesses against the Trust and the Fund, and the
number and dollar amounts claimed, reviewed, and paid. We also
obtained information on NPFC's claims contingency planning for
handling potential surges in claims submitted related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
We also obtained information from NPFC officials about the status of
the recommendations made in our November 2010 report.
We conducted our work from November 2010 to March 2011 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to meet our stated objectives and that we
discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information
and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions.
We performed limited procedures to determine the Fund expenditures
reported were reasonable for our reporting purposes.
Background:
A complex landscape of laws and regulations governs the liability for
oil spill costs of different parties. Injuries and damages that arise
from an oil spill incident are governed by federal statutes and common
law, federal securities laws, and various state laws. For example, the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),[Footnote 8] as amended, places the
primary liability for the cost of the oil spills”-up to certain
limits-”on the responsible party or parties for removal costs and
damages specified in OPA (referred to as OPA-compensable damages). OPA
authorizes the use of the Fund, which NPFC administers, for federal
cleanup and natural resource restoration. NPFC monitors the sources
and uses of the Fund, adjudicates claims submitted to the Fund for
payment, and pursues reimbursements from responsible parties for costs
and damages paid by the Fund and certain other recoverable costs.
Under OPA, the authorized limit on expenditures to be paid from the
Fund is currently $1-billion in total expenditures per incident, with
a concurrent limit of $500 million per incident for natural resource
damage assessments and claims.
Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Coast Guard, without in
any way relieving other responsible parties of liability, directed BP
to establish a single claims facility for all responsible parties to
centralize claims processing for claimants.[Footnote 9] In June 2010,
at the urging of the White House and the Department of Justice, BP
established a new claims processing facility”-GCCF--and announced
creation of a $20 billion escrow account (Trust) to satisfy claims
resolved by GCCF and certain other claims, including natural resource
damages. BP has also pledged collateral to secure its obligation to
contribute the full $20 billion to the Trust.
BP established GCCF to provide a mechanism for individuals and
businesses to file claims for costs and damages incurred as a result
of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Because NPFC bills the responsible
parties directly for costs agencies have incurred in response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP pays these costs and they are not paid
from the Trust. Payments received by NPFC from BP are deposited into
the Fund.
Individuals and businesses are required to first file with GCCF for
Deepwater Horizon-related oil spill claims. For those claims submitted
to GCCF that are rejected or not paid within 90 days, claimants may
file OPA-compensable claims with NPFC to request reimbursement from
the Fund.
GCCF began operations and started accepting claim forms on August 23,
2010. GCCF, administered by Kenneth R. Feinberg, draws funds from the
Trust to pay claims. The payments are intended to provide compensation
for both OPA-compensable and certain non-OPA-compensable claims.
BP established an irrevocable Trust (for the announced escrow account)
on August 6, 2010, designating three trustees[Footnote 10] with
fiduciary responsibility to collect promised contributions from BP and
make disbursements to permitted categories of beneficiaries. BP
committed to fund the Trust on a quarterly basis over 3-1/2 years for
a total of $20 billion to be paid into the Trust as of 2014.[Footnote
11] The Trust is to pay some OPA-compensable claims and some other
claims for personal injuries that are not OPA-compensable, but for
which BP would be liable under other federal or state laws, such as
the Jones Act or state oil pollution acts.[Footnote 12]
Results in Brief:
With reported Fund costs of about $629.5 million as of March 31, 2011,
NPFC has incurred costs that could result in payments of over 60
percent of the funds available under the Fund's statutory
$1-billion-per-incident-expenditure-cap.[Footnote 13] If total Fund
expenditures for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill exceed $1 billion,
agencies may be required to rely on reallocating their appropriated
funding to cover costs they incur or obtain supplemental funding. In
addition, agencies may be unable to cover some costs and NPFC would be
unable to pay any additional claims related to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. Ultimately, the federal government's financial risk will
continue to be closely linked with actions taken by BP and the other
responsible parties to pay claims and other costs. To date, BP has
continued to meet its stated commitment to pay the costs associated
with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and has continued to fund the
August 2010 agreement establishing a $20 billion Trust that GCCF can
draw from to pay claims.
With respect to claims processing, NPFC actions are necessarily
closely tied to those of GCCF. NPFC has taken a number of steps to
monitor GCCF's claims processing in planning for contingencies to help
ensure it can effectively process any future surges in the number of
claims it receives as a result of rejected GCCF claims that NPFC may
receive for adjudication related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
These actions helped NPFC to process a sharp increase in the number of
claims individuals and businesses submitted to NPFC in December 2010.
On our previous recommendations, NPFC reported that it plans to update
its policies and procedures in August and October 2011 to address
three of the four recommendations made in our November 2010 report.
For the other recommendation, NPFC contends that its current
procedures, which allow for invoices sent to responsible parties to
serve as notification for cost recovery, provide adequate
documentation and notification of responsible party designations. We
disagree. As stated in our November 2010 report, we found that NPFC's
existing procedures for notifying responsible parties using invoices did
not clearly communicate their "responsible party" designation. For
example, an official from a Deepwater Horizon oil spill responsible
party who had received an invoice from NPFC, stated during a July 2010
hearing that his company had not received notification of designation.
Also, NPFC sent the notice to Transocean Holdings Incorporated, but
Transocean replied that the correct entity is Transocean Holdings, LLC.
Risk That Total Expenditures from the Fund Will Reach the Cap:
Federal agencies continue to incur Deepwater Horizon-related removal
and other costs. As NPFC continues to make expenditures from the Fund
to reimburse federal agency costs and directly pay for other Deepwater
Horizon-related costs, NPFC reported, as of March 31, 2011, it has
incurred costs that could result in payments of over 60 percent of the
funds available under the $1-billion-per-incident-expenditure-cap from
the Fund. Once the expenditures reach the cap, NPFC will be precluded
from making any additional cost reimbursements to agencies or paying
any additional claims related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
According to internal Coast Guard reports, as of March 31, 2011, NPFC
had obligated or incurred approximately $629.5 million against the
Fund toward the $1-billion-per-incident-expenditure-cap.[Footnote 14]
This amount includes:
* $451.4 million obligated against the Fund to reimburse government
agencies' Pollution Removal Funding Authorizations (Federal
Authorizations) and Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests
(MIPR). Of the total obligated amount, as of March 31, 2011, NPFC had
approved about $193.9 million for payment.[Footnote 15]
* $130.2 million expended by the Coast Guard and charged directly to
the Fund. These costs are referred to by the Coast Guard as direct
costs and include contracts and travel directly related to the oil
spill response.[Footnote 16]
* $47.8 million obligated against the Fund for the initiation of
natural resource damage assessments (NRDA) to the Department of the
Interior (D01).[Footnote 17]
NPFC officials told us that they have not estimated a time frame for
when they anticipate the cap will be reached. However, they stated
that there is a significant risk the cap could be reached in fiscal
year 2011 as agencies continue to conduct significant removal activities
related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
If expenditures from the Fund collectively exceed the $1-billion-per-
incident-cap, agencies and claimants could no longer receive
reimbursement from the Fund. In that event, federal agencies might
have to turn to options such as requesting supplemental appropriations
or reallocating funds from their annual appropriations or using other
agency budgetary resources to cover costs that would otherwise be
reimbursed by the Fund. Further, if agencies stopped funding Deepwater
Horizon oil-spill-related activities, this could affect the federal
government's ability to complete oil spill removal and other related
efforts.
Ultimately, the federal government's financial exposure will continue
to be closely linked with BP and the other responsible parties'
actions concerning the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP has committed
to paying costs for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill including
reimbursing the Fund for its Deepwater Horizon-related expenditures,
even to the extent such costs exceed the $20 billion it has agreed to
set aside. However, circumstances may occur that adversely impact BP
or other responsible parties' financial condition or ability (above BP's
collateralized pledge) to pay such claims including reimbursing the
Fund for Deepwater Horizon costs paid.
Through March 2011, BP has continued to fund the Trust established in
August 2010 to pay for Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims as agreed.
BP committed to fund a $20 billion irrevocable Trust on a quarterly
basis over 3-1/2 years. As of March 31, 2011, BP has made the required
payments that total $6.25 billion. In addition, as shown on table 1,
GCCF has paid approximately $3.7 billion on over 280,000 claims from
the Trust as of March 31, 2011.
Claims-Processing Status Update:
Table 1: Claims Paid by GCCF as of March 31, 2011 (unaudited):
Dollars in millions:
Type: Emergency Advanced Payments;
Number of claims paid: 169,005;
Amount: $2,580.2.
Type: Interim Payments;
Number of claims paid: 4,313;
Amount: $48.4.
Type: Quick Pay (Final)[A];
Number of claims paid: 101,474;
Amount: $947.0.
Type: Full Review (Final)[A];
Number of claims paid: 6,516;
Amount: $79.0.
Type: Total[B];
Number of claims paid: 281,308;
Amount: $3,654.6.
Source: GAO analysis of GCCF data.
[A] As of March 31, 2011, 38 percent of the payments from GCCF were
paid as either Quick Pay or Full Review, both of which require these
claimants to sign a release waiving any rights they may have against
responsible parties to file or participate in legal action, or to
submit any claim to NPFC for payment.
[B] As described in our November 2010 report, claims approved by GCCF
are paid from a Trust established and funded (up to $20 billion) by
BP. Prior to the establishment of GCCF, BP had received and directly
paid claims from individuals and businesses totaling $396.0 million.
[End of table]
As of March 2011, while GCCF has established four types of claim
payments and paid over $3.6 billion.
* Emergency Advanced Payments. Payments that were available to
individuals and businesses that experienced financial hardship
resulting from damages incurred from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
and filed claims by November 23, 2010.[Footnote 18]
* Quick Pay (Final). Payments to a claimant who has been paid an
Emergency Advance Payments by GCCF which require the claimant to sign
a release and within 14 days be paid $5,000 if an individual claimant
or $25,000 if a business claimant without having to submit additional
supporting documents or go through further claims review.
* Interim Payments. Payments for documented past damages caused by the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Interim Payments will not compensate
for future losses or damages.
* Full Review (Final). Payments for all past and future losses caused
by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Claimants who accept a final
payment are required to sign a release.[Footnote 19]
With respect to claims processing, NPFC has taken a number of steps in
planning for contingencies to help ensure it can effectively handle
any surges in the number of claims it receives for adjudication as a
result of rejection from GCCF related to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. NPFC officials told us they monitor ongoing GCCF activities in
order to forecast and take actions to mitigate potential surges in the
number of claims that may come to NPFC for adjudication.
NPFC has established a contract through October 31, 2011, for
additional claims reviewers.[Footnote 20] The contract states that the
contractor-provided services should allow NPFC management to make
decisions based on the contractor's review. It also states that in all
cases, NPFC is the final adjudicator on all claims. In addition, NPFC
officials told us that NPFC has plans to augment its claims division
using Coast Guard reservists and could also reassign NPFC staff as
needed to assist in the claims adjudication process.
To date, NPFC's actions have enabled it to manage its claims
processing workloads. For example, in December 2010, NPFC experienced
a surge in claims after 90 days had elapsed from receipt of many
initial claims by GCCF,[Footnote 21] and the deadline for submitting
certain claims to GCCF had passed. NPFC claims data showed that the
number of monthly claims submitted to NPFC for the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill significantly increased during the period from November 2010
to January 2011. (See Figure 1.) According to an NPFC official, this
increase may be attributed to:
* Passage of GCCF's November 23, 2010, deadline for submitting
Emergency Payment Claim applications;
* Public announcements made by GCCF's Administrator that GCCF was
trying to clear its Emergency Payment Claims backlog by December 15,
2010; and;
* November 23, 2010, was 90 days from when GCCF started accepting
claims and in accordance with NPFC policies, if after 90 days the
claim is without resolution, claims can be submitted to NPFC.
Figure 1: Total Number of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Claims Presented
to NPFC (unaudited):
Date: September 2010;
Number of claims: 17.
Date: October 2010;
Number of claims: 21.
Date: November 2010;
Number of claims: 107.
Date: December 2010;
Number of claims: 250.
Date: January 2011;
Number of claims: 140;
Date: February 2011;
Number of claims: 26.
Date: March 2011;
Number of claims: 68.
Source: GAO analysis of NPFC data.
Note: NPFC first began receiving Deepwater Horizon oil spill-related
claims March 31, 2011, totaled $186 million.
[End of figure]
The potential for another increase in the number of claims presented
for payment to NPFC may occur again if a large number of claimants who
are denied payments by GCCF choose to file their claims with NPFC at,
or about, the same time. As of March 31, 2011, according to GCCF's Web
site,[Footnote 22] GCCF had, in addition to paying over 281,000
claims, denied over 4,000 claims from individuals and businesses, and
issued determination letters that found over 3,000 claimants suffered
no loss.
As of March 31, 2011, GCCF had more than 100,000 claims under review
with additional claims being submitted daily. Among the claims under
review, GCCF indicated that about 39,000 claims require additional
information in order to be processed. Claimants who are denied payment
by GCCF or whose claims are not settled within 90 days may pursue the
following four options:
* Appeal GCCF's decision, if the claim is in excess of $250,000 under
procedures established by GCCF Administrator;
* Commence litigation against the responsible parties in court;
[Footnote 23]
* File a claim with NPFC;[Footnote 24] or:
* Do nothing.
NPFC's March 31, 2011, data showed that since the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill occurred in April 2010 it had received over 629 claims,
totaling $186 million from individuals and businesses for this spill.
NPFC had issued determinations for more than 538 of these claims (for
about $163 million), all of which were denials.
NPFC denied the claims for the following reasons:
* Failure to prove damages were the result of the spill (39 percent);
* Lack of documentation (34 percent);
* Failure to prove damages (10 percent);
* Paid or being paid by responsible party (9 percent);
* Withdrawn by Claimant (5 percent);
* Not compensable under OPA, and therefore, not payable from the Fund
(2 percent);
* Fraud (1 percent).
It is unclear at this time, if any, and if so how many, of the over
100,000 claims pending with GCCF, as of March 31, 2011, will
ultimately result in claimants filing a claim with NPFC.
Since we last reported in November 2010, GCCF has updated its payment
options and the deadlines associated with those options. GCCF's
decisions and related actions affect the number of claims submitted to
NPFC. When the deadlines were reached for the Emergency Advanced
Payments claims to GCCF, a surge of claims were subsequently submitted
to NPFC in December 2010.
Status of Prior Recommendations: Department of Homeland Security:
NPFC has stated that actions are underway to address three of the four
recommendations we made in our November 2010 report. Table 2 provides
a status on the recommendations.
Table 2: Status of Prior Recommendations:
In order to help establish and maintain effective cost reimbursement
policies and procedures for the Fund, we recommended that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of the Coast
Guard's NPFC to update NPFC's policies and procedures to include:
Prior recommendation: 1. Current Fund reimbursement-billing practices
that reflect both a percentage of federal agencies' obligations as
well as expenditures.
Status: NPFC officials acknowledged that the billing practices for
Deepwater Horizon are not documented in the agency's policies and
procedures. NPFC officials told us they plan to formally incorporate
the practices into its policies and procedures by October 31, 2011.
Prior recommendation: 2. Specific procedural guidance on processing
DOD requests for reimbursement using Military Interdepartmental
Purchase Requests.
Status: NPFC officials told us they plan to formally incorporate the
procedures into NPFC's policies and procedures by October 31, 2011.
In order to ensure that responsible parties are properly notified of
their responsibilities for an oil spill, we recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of NPFC to:
Prior recommendation: 3. Update NPFC's current policies to reflect
current organization and structure and management's directives;
Status: NPFC officials stated that NPFC's current policies will be
updated to reflect current organization and structure and management's
directives by August 31, 2011.
Prior recommendation: 4. Update NPFC's current procedures to provide
detailed guidance and procedures for identifying and documenting
responsible party notification.
Status: NPFC officials disagreed with our recommendations and stated
its responsible party designations are unrelated to the imposition of
liability under OPA and that they serve the purpose of getting a
responsible party to advertise the Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims
process. NPFC's procedures provide that responsible parties and their
guarantors are to be notified of their oil spill-related
responsibilities. In accordance with its current procedures, NPFC sent
formal letters of designation to some, but not all, of the responsible
parties it identified for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To other
responsible parties, NPFC provided only invoices that reflected NPFC's
assessment of liability for removal costs. NPFC's existing procedures
for notifying responsible parties using invoices did not clearly
communicate their "responsible party" designation. We continue to
believe that NPFC's procedures for identifying and documenting
responsible party notification needs to be updated to clearly indicate
the required mechanism used to identify and notify responsible parties
of their financial obligations related to oil spills, including
Deepwater Horizon.
[End of table]
Conclusions:
In our November 2010 report we offered a matter for congressional
consideration that the Congress may want to consider setting a Fund
cap per incident based upon net expenditures (expenditures less
reimbursements). Since that report, expenditures have continued to be
paid from the Fund and continue to approach the legislated cap. Given
the risk that total expenditures from the Fund may reach the currently
legislated cap, we are reiterating our prior suggestion that the
Congress should consider amending the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as
amended (OPA),[Footnote 25] or enacting new legislation that changes
the calculation of expenditures made against the Fund's $1-billion-per-
incident-expenditure-cap to take into account reimbursements from
responsible parties.
We continue to believe that NPFC's procedures for identifying and
documenting responsible party notification needs to be updated to
clearly indicate the required mechanism to be used to notify
responsible parties. Related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, NPFC
sent formal letters of designation to some, but not all, of the
responsible parties it identified. It provided only invoices to some
responsible parties that reflect NPFC's assessment of liability for
removal costs. NPFC's existing procedures for notifying responsible
parties using invoices did not clearly communicate their "responsible
party" designation. Consequently, we reiterate our previous
recommendation that NPFC update its procedures to clearly indicate the
required mechanism to be used to notify responsible parties for the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and future spills, in order to avoid
confusion on whether an entity has financial responsibility for
payment of oil-spill-related costs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of our briefing to the management of the
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security for comment. We received
comments from the Department of Homeland Security on this briefing
which stated NPFC continues to disagree with what it understands to be
GAO's concern that a notice of designation of a discharge source
issued to some responsible parties, but not to all responsible parties
that are eventually identified, risks confusion and breakdowns in the
claims management and cost reimbursement process. However, it also
commented NPFC intends to review, clarify, and update its designation
procedures on or by October 31, 2011. The Department of Justice also
provided comments. In regards to our recommendation that NPFC update
its procedures to provide detailed guidance and procedures for
identifying and documenting responsible party notification, DOJ stated
that GAO has not identified any statutory responsibility that NPFC
failed to fulfill under OPA Title 1, nor has GAO identified any policy
basis for this recommendation.
We did not assert that NPFC did not comply with legal requirements or
policy concerning responsible party designations. Nonetheless, as we
previously reported, clarification of responsible party designation
procedures is necessary to avoid possible confusion over
responsibility and breakdowns in the claims management and cost
reimbursement process. Consequently, we are encouraged that
NPFC intends to update its procedures to clarify responsible party
designations.
[End of briefing slides]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 101-380, 104 Stat. 489 (1990).
[2] The Fund also pays for the costs of certain federal agency
operations.
[3] BP established the Trust under Delaware law, which generally
provides that the principal of the trust can be used only for the
purposes stated in the trust agreement and that the terms of the trust
agreement cannot be modified and are legally enforceable by the
trustees. BP pledged collateral to cover its funding commitment to the
Trust.
[4] The Jones Act 46 U.S.C. § 30104, establishes liability for injury
or death of seamen incurred in the course of their employment.
[5] GAO, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Preliminary Assessment of
Federal Financial Risks and Cost Reimbursement and Notification
Policies and Procedures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-90R] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,
2010).
[6] The $1-billion cap is concurrent with a $500-million cap on
expenditures for natural resource damages and related assessments.
[7] GAO, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Preliminary Assessment of
Federal Financial Risks and Cost Reimbursement and Notification
Policies and Procedures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-90R] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,
2010).
[8] Pub. L. No. 101-380, 104 Stat. 489 (1990).
[9] On May 11, 2010, NPFC notified BP and Transocean Holdings
Incorporated that BP's advertising and claims processing were
sufficient, and Transocean should not advertise and should coordinate
claims processing with BP. According to NPFC officials, NPFC wanted to
avoid public confusion and have only one responsible party advertise
for claims.
[10] The three trustees are Citigroup Trust-Delaware, N.A., which
serves as the corporate trustee, and John S. Martin, Jr. and Kent D.
Syverud, who serve as individual trustees.
[11] The funding schedule for the escrow account agreed to by the
administration and BP was for contributions by BP of $5 billion a year
for 4 years. BP later confirmed that the funding schedule would
include an initial deposit of $3 billion, which was made on August 9,
2010, with an additional deposit of $2 billion made in the fourth
quarter of 2010 and $1.25 billion a quarter thereafter until the
entire $20 billion has been deposited.
[12] The Jones Act 46 U.S.C. § 30104, establishes liability for injury
or death of seamen incurred in the course of their employment.
[13] The $1-billion cap is concurrent with a $500-million cap on
expenditures for natural resource damages and related assessments.
[14] An obligation is a commitment, such as a contract, that creates a
legal liability for the payment of goods and services ordered or
received. NPFC's procedures for monitoring the amount spent toward the
cap use the actual expenditures and obligated amounts.
[15] Federal Authorizations authorize reimbursement of federal and
nonfederal government agencies from the Fund for oil-spill-response
and removal activities. NPFC uses MIPRs rather than Federal
Authorizations for the Department of Defense and certain other
agencies.
[16] According to the Coast Guard, direct costs are operating costs
that it otherwise would not have incurred but for the oil spill.
[17] There is a statutory cap of $500 million in expenditures from the
Fund per incident for natural resource damage assessments and claims.
26 U.S.C. § 9509(c)(2).
[18] According to GCCF's Web site, claims under Emergency Advanced
Payments could be submitted through November 23, 2010, and were
adjudicated and paid through December 15, 2010. Since the deadline
expired, this payment is no longer available.
[19] Both Quick Pay and Full Review Claims require claimants to sign a
release waiving any rights they may have against responsible parties,
to file or participate in legal action, or to submit any claim to NPFC
for payment.
[20] Although the contract is currently effective through October 31,
2011, NPFC officials said they could issue additional task orders, so
that the contract could be used to provide NPFC with additional
support operations through October 31, 2012.
[21] Under OPA and the implementing federal regulations and policies,
if the designated responsible party denies a claim or does not settle
it within 90 days, a claimant may commence action in court against the
responsible party or present a claim to NPFC.
[22] Claimant Review Status as of March 31, 2011, [hyperlink,
http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com] (accessed April 1, 2011).
[23] Numerous individuals, businesses, states, and the federal
government have commenced various actions in a number of courts
against several companies, including BP, seeking damages or
declaratory or injunctive relief under several laws, including OPA.
Many of these pending cases have been consolidated in multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. See [hyperlink,
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm].
[24] If a claimant decides to commence litigation against the
responsible parties, NPFC will not review the same claim until the
litigation has concluded.
[25] The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-
509, established the Fund and its original expenditure caps, and OPA
modified the expenditure caps to their current level. See 26 U.S.C. §
9509(c)(2).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: