4

On March 18, 2020, a tornado made official landfall north of Breckenridge, Texas, moving 

across a path length of 1.53 miles, and demonstrating a maximum width of 12 yards.9 On March 

19, 2020, a second tornado, moving across a path length of 3.6 miles, and demonstrating a 

maximum width of 1,050 yards made official landfall northeast of Abiline, Texas and continued 

moving northeast through the town of Hamby; a town located 50 miles Southwest of 

Breckenridge, Texas.10 These tornados are recorded to have caused significant damages to all

areas which they passed. 

On March 19, 2020, the separator of an oil storage tank owned by Petro Cat, was discovered 

to have fallen after the tornadoes struck,

11 releasing 14 barrels of crude oil into a pond which led 

into the Hubbard Creek Lake, in Breckenridge, Texas.12

Responsible Party

The owner of the oil storage tank is Petro Cat, LLC., which has Mr. listed 

as the company owner.13 As such, the SOSC has identified Petro Cat, LLC as the responsible 

party for the incident.14 

On September 2, 2020, the NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to Petro Cat, 

LLC.

15 On September 3, 2020, the RP had a phone conversation with the NPFC affirming its 

status as the owner of the oil storage tank but asserting that the claimant, USFS, left the spill site 

by the RP’s demand on March 22, 2020, and stating that the oil spill removal activities after 

March 22, 2020 were completed by Petro Cat, LLC.

16

The SOSC validated the RP’s statement of asking USFS to demobilize on March 22, 2020. 

However, the SOSC states that it then advised Petro Cat, LLC that operations could not cease 

until the threat to the lake was mitigated and stated that the RP agreed to allow four contractors 

hired for cleanup, including USFS, to return to the spill site and continue cleanup operations on 

March 23, 2020 under contract with the SOSC.

17 Furthermore, the TRRC provided evidence that 

Petro Cat, LLC. was unable to complete spill removal themselves and that the RP requested that 

the SOSC take over cleanup operations due to logistics and financial reasons.18

Recovery Operations 

Claimant asserts that on March 21, 2020, it was notified of the compromise of the oil storage 

tank; causing the release of oil into a stock pond which overflowed into the Hubbard Creek 

Lake. The SOSC confirms that the RP hired EES Environmental to respond to the spill and EES 

subcontracted to Lone Star Environmental, who then also subcontracted with 

 

9 List of Tornados in the United States Jan-March 2020. 10 List of Tornados in the United States Jan-March 2020. 11 Texas Railroad Commission Site Remediation Summary Sheet, cleanup ID#7B-267756. 12 Summary of Phone Conversation between the NPFC and Petro Cat, LLC., dated September 3, 2020. 13See attached TRRC Oil and Gar Operator online query status report that shows the registered operator as Petrocat 

Innovations, LLC with Mr. as the Managing Owner. 14 Id. 15 NPFC RP Notification Letter to Petro Cat, LLC., dated September 2, 2020. 16 Summary of Phone Conversation between the NPFC and Petro Cat, LLC., dated September 3, 2020. 17 Email between TRRC personnel cited as 7th Update, dated March 27, 2020. 18 Email between TRRC personnel cited as 8th Update, dated March 28, 2020.

(b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6)

6

removal costs from USFS, LLC, dated August 27, 2020.32 The submission of costs was 

identified as a pre-claim # PRE-00015442, due to information per 33 CFR 136.105 (d) (3), not 

being identified within USFS’s claim submission, and the submissions failure to provide an 

explanation as to how the spill posed threat to a navigable waterway.33

On September 3, 2020, Petro Cat, LLC provided the NPFC with information which provided 

an explanation of their designation as the RP.34 On October 22, 2020, the Claimant provided the 

longitude and latitude of the spill incident location,35 and on November 12, 2020, an EPA 

Region VI representative, in his capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the 

incident, confirmed the location specified by the Claimant’s GPS coordinates as posing a 

substantial threat to a navigable waterway.36 

The costs presented to the NPFC in the amount of $54,922.60 matched those submitted to the 

RP on July 27, 2020, but did not meet the mandatory 90 day presentment time period provided to 

the RP to settle the claim. As such, on October 1, 2020, the NPFC notified USFS that the 

submission would remain in pre-claim status until the RP’s 90 day presentment time period had 

lapsed, or an official response from the RP was provided.37 On October 26, 2020, after the 

passage of the 90 day presentment time period to the RP, the NPFC transferred the pre-claim 

submission into a claim and assigned it to a Claims Manager for review.38

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).39 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.40 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.41 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

 

32 USFS, LLC. claim submission, received August 31, 2020. 33 Acknowledgment Letter, dated September 2, 2020. 34 Summary of Phone Conversation between the NPFC and Petro Cat, LLC., dated September 3, 2020. 35 Email from USFS, LLC. to the NPFC, dated October 22, 2020. 36 Email from the EPA Region VI to the NPFC, dated November 12, 2020. 37 Email to USFS, LLC from the NPFC, dated October 1, 2020. 38 Acknowledgment Letter, dated October 26, 2020. 39 33 CFR Part 136. 40 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 41 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them).
7

V. DISCUSSION: 

 An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.42 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.43 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to 

victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”44 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”45 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”46 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).47 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.48 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.49

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan.50

 

42 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 43 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 44 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 45 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 46 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 47 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 48 33 CFR Part 136. 49 33 CFR 136.105. 50 There was not a FOSC assigned to this incident.To ensure that USFS met its burden with respect to this factor, the 

NPFC coordinated with the regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which would have been the 

FOSC for this incident if one were assigned. After analyzing the spill and the actions taken by USFS, the EPA 

opined that the actions taken were consistent with the National Contigency Plan. We agree.
8

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.51

 

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the majority of the costs incurred by 

USFS and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the 

appropriate rate sheet pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which 

included invoices and/or proof of payment where applicable. 

The amount of compensable costs is $49,728.42 while $5,194.18 was deemed noncompensable for the following reasons: 

1. USFS submitted a request for costs totaling $4,324.00, for items and/or activities

which are not supported by the rate schedule submitted to the NPFC with their 

claim.

52 As such, all costs for items whose costs cannot be supported in the amount of 

$4,324.00, are denied.53

2. USFS submitted a request for standby personnel costs. A standby hourly rate was not 

supported by the rate schedule submitted with the claim and thus, the NPFC utilized 

the standard rate for standby hours of half the supported hourly rates, to determine the 

rates which can be approved. As such, all costs for standby hours that exceed the 

standard rate in the amount $40.00, are denied. 

3. USFS submitted a request for Per Diem, Per Employee costs totaling $210.00, for 

3/21/2020.54 After reviewing the costs, the NPFC found that 7 employees were 

claimed at $30.00 per employee. The rate schedule supports the $30.00 per employee 

rate however, only 6 employees are cited on the daily report for 3/21/2020, and only 6 

employees are cited on the invoice for 3/21/2020.55 As such, 6 employees are 

approved per diem, and the additional $30.00, is denied.56

4. USFS submitted a request for lodging costs totaling $1,913.10.57 After reviewing the 

costs, the NPFC found that only $1,112.92 in lodging costs are supported by the 

receipts submitted in association with the claim.58 The additional costs, totaling 

$800.18, are not supported by any of the information submitted with the claim. As 

such, all costs for lodging which cannot be supported in the amount of $800.18, are 

denied.59

Overall Denied Costs: $5,194.18 

 

51 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 52 See Rate Schedule submitted with EES Invoice #3000941. 53 Summary of Costs spreadsheet, dated November 13, 2020. 54 EES Invoice #3000941 with daily reports, dated March 21 2020 to March 26, 2020 55 EES Invoice #3000941 with daily reports, dated March 21 2020 to March 26, 2020 56 Summary of Costs spreadsheet, dated November 13, 2020. 57 EES Invoice #3000941 with daily reports, dated March 21 2020 to March 26, 2020. 58 See Ridge Motel- Breckenridge receipts submitted with EES Invoice #3000941. 59 Summary of Costs spreadsheet, dated November 13, 2020.