3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP924015-URC001 

Claimant: E3 OMI, LLC

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $7,844.61

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $7,844.61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 3, 2022, the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) National Response Center 

(“NRC”) received notification of a pipeline leak that discharged 3 gallons of crude oil at the Polk 

43 Production Platform inside the Port Neches Field Offshore facility in Orange County, Texas.2

Torrent Oil, LLC (“Torrent Oil” or “RP”), owner and operator of the pipeline responsible for the 

oil spill, was identified as the Responsible Party (RP),3 as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990.4 The incident was caused when the connection on the pipeline developed a small pin hole, 

spraying oil directly into the Bessie Heights Marsh; a navigable waterway of the United States.5 

E3 OMI, LLC (“E3 OMI” or “Claimant”) was hired by Torrent Oil on December 3, 2022, to 

contain and recover the spilled crude oil.6 E3 OMI performed a site survey on the day of the spill 

and put out Torrent Oil’s boom and sorbents to mitigate the incident.7 On December 4, 2022, E3 

OMI changed the sorbents as needed, and placed all oiled sorbents into a waste box owned by 

Torrent Oil. Cleanup activity ended and E3 OMI left the scene on December 4, 2022.8

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (“USEPA” or “FOSC”) is the 

Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) based on the location of this incident. The FOSC 

determined that the incident posed a substantial threat of discharge of oil into a navigable 

1

 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated with this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s 

rights under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid 

to reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 

2

 National Response Center Report #1354084 dated December 3, 2022. 

3 See, Email from FOSC to NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

4

 33 U.S.C. § 2701 (32). 

5

 Email from TGLO to NPFC, dated December 11, 2023. See, Texas General Land Office Spill Case Number 2022-

4016, pg. 2 of 26. 

6

 Email from E3 OMI to NPFC dated December 14, 2023. See, E3 OMI Short Form Service Contract pages 1-5 of 5. 

7

 E3 OMI Original Claim Submission received December 6, 2023. See, E3 OMI Invoice SI-28386 pg. 3 of 11. 

8

Id. Pages 3-10 of 11. 

(b) (6)
4

waterway of the United States, and determined all actions taken by the E3 OMI were consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).9 

On December 6, 2023, E3 OMI presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $7,844.61.10 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful 

consideration has determined that all costs requested for $7,844.61 are compensable and offers 

this amount as full and final compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On December 3, 2022, the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) National Response Center 

(“NRC”) received notification of a pipeline leak that discharged 3 gallons of crude oil at the Polk 

43 Production Platform inside the Port Neches Field Offshore facility in Orange County, 

Texas.11 

Torrent Oil, LLC (“Torrent Oil” or “RP”), owner and operator of the pipeline responsible for 

the oil spill, was identified as the Responsible Party (RP),12 as defined by the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990.13 The incident was caused when the connection on the pipeline developed a small pin 

hole, spraying oil directly into the Bessie Heights Marsh; a navigable waterway of the United 

States.14 

Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Port Arthur conducted a phone investigation but discovered the 

discharge was isolated to the zone outside United States Coast Guard jurisdiction thus, they did 

not respond to the scene. The Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was also notified of the 

incident and arrived on scene to perform spill cleanup oversight in its capacity as the State On 

Scene Coordinator (SOSC).15

Responsible Party 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner and operator of the pipeline is 

the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.16 Torrent Oil is the owner and operator of the 

9

 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

10 ES&H Original Claim Submission received November 7, 2023. 

11 National Response Center Report #1354084 dated December 3, 2022. 

12 See, Email from FOSC to NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

13 33 U.S.C. § 2701 (32). 

14 Email from TGLO to NPFC, dated December 11, 2023. See, Texas General Land Office Spill Case Number 2022-

4016, pg. 2 of 26. 

15 Email from TGLO to NPFC, dated December 11, 2023. See, Texas General Land Office Spill Case Number 2022-

4016, pages 1-7 of 26. 

16 33 U.S.C. §2701(32). 
5

pipeline and facility at the time when the spill incident occurred.17 As such, Torrent Oil is 

identified as the responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.18

E3 OMI presented its invoice to Torrent Oil, RP, this is subject of this claim and identified as 

invoice # SI-28386 dated December 4, 2022.19 The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter to 

Torrent Oil, LLC dated December 7, 2023.20 A RP Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim 

was presented to the NPFC that is seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs or 

damages incurred as result of the incident in which the recipient is the identified or suspected 

RP.21 

Recovery Operations 

 E3 OMI, LLC was hired by Torrent Oil on December 3, 2022, to contain and recover the 

spilled crude oil.22 E3 OMI performed a site survey on the day of the spill and deployed Torrent 

Oil’s boom and sorbents to mitigate the incident.23 On December 4, 2022, E3 OMI changed the 

sorbents as needed and placed all oiled sorbents into a waste box owned by Torrent Oil. Cleanup 

activity ended and E3 OMI departed the scene on December 4, 2022.24

TGLO returned to the scene on December 5, 2022, to perform a final inspection of the 

cleanup operation.25 E3 OMI did not handle waste disposal for Torrent Oil.26

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

 Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)27 require all claims for removal costs must be presented to the responsible party 

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.28

E3 OMI submitted all costs incurred as result of the December 3, 2022, oil spill incident to 

the responsible party on December 4, 2022.29 Torrent Oil, LLC has not paid E3 OMI, for any 

costs submitted with E3 OMI’s claim.30

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

17 Email from FOSC to the NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

18 33 U.S.C. §2701(32). 

19 See, E3 OMI original claim submission received December 6, 2023. See, E3 OMI Invoice SI-28386 pg. 3 of 11. 

19 Id. Pages 3-10 of 11. 

20 See, NPFC letter to Torrent Oil, LLC emailed on December 7, 2023. 

21 See, RP Notification Letter dated December 7, 2023. 

22 Email from E3 OMI to NPFC dated December 14, 2023. See, E3 OMI Short Form Service Contract pages 1-5 of 

5. 

23 E3 OMI Original Claim Submission received December 6, 2023. See, E3 OMI Invoice SI-28386 pg. 3 of 11. 

24 Id. Pages 3-10 of 11. 

25 Email from TGLO to NPFC dated December 11, 2023. See, Texas General Land Office Spill Case Number 2022-

4016, pages 6 and 12 of 26. 

26 See, E3 OMI Original Claim Submission received December 6, 2023, pg. 2 of 11. 

27 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

28 33 CFR 136.103. 

29 E3 OMI Original Claim Submission received December 6, 2023. See, E3 OMI Invoice SI-28386 pg. 3 of 11. 

30 Id. pages 1-2. 
6

 On December 6, 2023, E3 OMI presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $7,844.61.31 The claim included E3 OMI’s signed OSLTF form, a 

copy of Invoice #SI-28386, all supporting daily reports and field notes, aerial images of the 

facility and images of the location of the spill.32 

 On December 14, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from E3 OMI.33 On 

December 14, 2023, E3 OMI provided a copy of the contract agreement between E3 OMI and 

Torrent Oil, a copy of the E3 OMI November 2022 Rate Schedule, a copy of the claim with all 

daily reports and field notes, and a detailed explanation of the 8.25% tax associated with the 

costs claimed.34

The RP did not settle the claim within 90 days from presentment.35 As such, the NPFC 

adjudicated the claim. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).36 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.37 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.38 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. 

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.39 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.40 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

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

31 E3 OMI claim submission received December 6, 2023. 

32 Id. with Attachments. 

33 Email from NPFC to E3 OMI, dated December 14, 2023. 

34 Email from E3 OMI to NPFC, dated December 14, 2023. 

35 33 CFR 136.103(c). 

36 33 CFR Part 136. 

37 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)).

38 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). 

39 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 

40 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 
7

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.”41 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.”42 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.”43

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).44 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.45 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.46

 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.47

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.48

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

submitted by E3 OMI 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. 

41 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). 

42 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 

43 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 

44 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 

45 33 CFR Part 136. 

46 33 CFR 136.105. 

47 After analyzing the incident and the actions taken by E3 OMI, LLC, the FOSC opined that the response actions 

undertaken by E3 OMI were consistent with the National Contingency Plan. See, Email from USEPA Region 6 to 

the NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

48 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.