3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPE20802-URC001 

Claimant: Olympus Technical Services, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $242,001.16 

Action Taken: Denial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

 On April 22, 2020, oil discharged from a cracked valve on one of Cardinal Oil, LLC’s 

(Cardinal) two tanks at its tank battery site 75 miles north of Billings, Montana. The oil released 

into secondary containment, but an estimated four to ten barrels escaped into Little Wall Creek 

and traveled at least two miles downstream. Cardinal has been identified as the Responsible 

Party (RP) for the discharge. 

On April 27, 2020, Cardinal hired Olympus Technical Services, Inc. (Olympus or Claimant) 

to clean up the discharged oil. Olympus commenced mobilization and response efforts on April 

28, 2020.2

 The response was complete by July 17, 2020. Olympus submitted multiple invoices 

to Cardinal in 2020, but only received partial payment. When Cardinal stopped paying, 

Olympus submitted its claim to Cardinal for payment in January 2021. In accordance with its 

executed contract with Cardinal, Olympus sought remedies through mediation. On April 22, 

2022, Olympus and Cardinal executed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to a settlement 

of $267,794.13. When Cardinal did not pay in accordance with the agreement, Olympus 

commenced an action in court on June 14, 2022.3

 On September 9, 2022, an evidentiary hearing 

was held. On November 21, 2022, the courtissued an Order for Settlement enforcing the agreed 

settlement between the parties. On April 7, 2023, Olympus filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment 

which the court granted the same day, entering a judgment in favor of Olympus and against 

Cardinal.4 Olympus asserts that Cardinal has not yet paid the claimed amount. As such, 

Olympus presented its claim for the balance of its project costs totaling $242,001.16 to the 

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 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 EPA Region VIII Polrep #1 attached to initial claim in Attachment 2. 3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT attached to claim in 

Attachment 8 at p. 6 of 23. 4 JUDGMENT in Case No. DV-56-2021-0000741-BC in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, 

Yellowstone County, dated April 7, 2023, attached to initial claim at Attachment 8, p. 23 of 23.

(b) (6)
4

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking compensation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF). The NPFC received the claim on April 20, 2023. 

The NPFC reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim and the applicable law and 

regulations. and has determined that the claim cannot be paid from the OSLTF. A claimant 

seeking compensation from the OSLTF must retain all rights of recovery against a responsible 

party permitting the NPFC to acquire them by subrogation. The claimant failed to retain these 

rights. Therefore, the claim must be denied. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On April 22, 2020, Cardinal Oil, LLC reported to the National Response Center (NRC) 

(Report #1275888) a discharge of 100-120 barrels of oil from its tank battery site into secondary 

containment. The release was due to a cracked valve on one of two 400-barrel tanks at the 

Myers 21-7 battery site, located 75 miles north of Billings, Montana.5

 On April 23, 2020, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) discussed the 

site situation with the Responsible Party (RP). The RP stated that Little Wall Creek was 

impacted 2 miles downstream. The RP estimated 4 barrels had been released to the creek.6 The 

extent of contamination was predominantly confined from the point of entry on Little Wall Creek 

to the creek’s junction with North Willow Creek - a downstream distance of approximately 5 

miles.

Responsible Party

Cardinal Oil, LLC, a regional oil and gas exploration company, was identified as the RP. 

Recovery Operations

The response was initiated by the RP (Cardinal Oil, LLC) on April 23. The RP acquired 

supplies (boom and sorbent pads) and organized to conduct cleanup of the area with several staff

members. The RP then hired Olympus Technical Services, on April 27, to complete the 

response. Olympus conducted a field reconnaissance on April 27 and then commenced with 

mobilization and response efforts starting April 28. A unified command consisting of Montana 

DEQ, an EPA Region 8 FOSC, and the RP held daily morning incident command (IC) meetings. 

EPA contacted Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Montana 

Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (BOGC). MDEQ was in contact with the RP as well as 

BOGC the previous day regarding the spill. The BOGC field representative went on-site and 

confirmed the spill impacted at least two miles. The representative estimated the spill occurred 

several days prior to it being reported. MDEQ estimated the release to the creek at closer to 10 

barrels, as compared to the RP’s four-barrel estimate. Although evidence of the spill reached 

two miles downstream, the BOGC field representative reported that except for occasional deeper 

5 EPA Region VIII Polrep #1 attached to initial claim in Attachment 2, pg 3 of 12, “Description of Threat”. 6 Id. 
5

pools, there were minimum impacts to the stream bank and vegetation.7 The RP deployed 

sausage boom across sections of the creek, in front of culverts and at several locations for 

collection points. Sorbent pads were placed along oiled bank areas as well as one heavily oiled 

area on top of the bank. Responders began pushing oil downstream to collection areas. A 

downstream culvert below the oil impacts was located with an underwater inlet side to act as a 

downstream underflow dam.8 

As of May 4, 2020, Olympus lined the soil stockpile area with a perimeter berm near the 

point of entry, excavated and placed soils impacted at the point of entry (approximately .5 acres) 

into the stockpile area, and removed impacted bank soil and vegetation and pooled oil. The 

response included excavation and hand shoveling of shoreline impacted soils and use of a 

vacuum truck and pom-poms on creek surface oil. The vac truck was effective on lighter oil and 

where access was available, while the pom-poms were most effective on high viscosity surface 

oils. Weed-free straw was effective at removal of high viscous oil on the water surface. Frequent 

use of sorbent boom collection points had been utilized to prevent further downstream migration 

of oil.9 Demobilization occurred on July 17, 2020.10

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

 On January 15, 2021, Olympus presented its claim for $249,074.19, via its attorney, to the 

RP.11 This claim included the balance of removal costs owed, plus late fees and legal fees. 

Olympus and Cardinal entered into mediation in the spring of 2022. On April 22, 2022, they 

executed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to a settlement of $267,794.13. After 

continued nonpayment by Cardinal, Olympus commenced an action in court on June 14, 2022.12 

On September 9, 2022, an evidentiary hearing was held, and on November 21, 2022, the judge 

issued an Order for Settlement enforcing the agreed settlement between the parties. On April 7, 

2023, Olympus filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment and the judge entered the Judgment the 

same day in favor of Olympus and against Cardinal.13

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

Olympus presented its claim to Cardinal on January 15, 2021. It then proceeded to mediation in 

accordance with its contract with Cardinal, eventually obtaining a settlement and an entry of 

judgment against Cardinal for $242,001.16 which Olympus asserts is still unpaid. More than 90 

days have passed since Olympus submitted its claim to Cardinal. When a RP denies a claim or 

7 EPA Region VIII Polrep #1 attached to initial claim in Attachment 2, pg 4 of 12, “Response Information – Initial 

Response”. 8 Id.

9 EPA Region VIII Polrep #1 attached to initial claim in Attachment 2, pgs 5-6 of 12, “Response Operations – 

Current Status reporting period ending May 4, 2020. 10 EPA Region VIII Polrep #2 attached to initial claim in Attachment 2, pg 11 of 12, “Introduction – Background, 

Demob Date”. 11 See Attachment 5 submitted with the initial claim submission – Letter dated January 15, 2021, from Olympus’ 

attorney to the RP, submitted via email and certified mail. 12 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT attached to claim in 

Attachment 8 at p. 6 of 23. 13 JUDGMENT in Case No. DV-56-2021-0000741-BC in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, 

Yellowstone County, dated April 7, 2023, attached to initial claim at Attachment 8, p. 23 of 23.
6

fails to settle a claim within 90 days, the claim can be submitted to the NPFC for adjudication. 

The NPFC received Olympus’ claim on April 20, 2023. 14 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).15 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.16 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.17 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.18 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.19 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.”20 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.”21 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 

14 Initial Claim submission received by the NPFC April 20, 2023. 15 33 CFR Part 136. 16 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)). 17 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). 18 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 19 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 20 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). 21 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).
7

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

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”22 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).23 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.24 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.25

 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. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.26

Olympus alleges that it incurred uncompensated removal costs. It sought recovery from the 

RP, followed by mediation in accordance with its contract with Cardinal, then commenced an 

action in state court against the RP for nonpayment in which it was awarded a entry of judgment. 

Olympus pursued the RP and failed to obtain compensation. Olympus now seeks reimbursement 

from the Fund, but for the reasons stated below it cannot be compensated by the Fund. 

Before reimbursement can be authorized, other pertinent provisions of OPA must be satisfied, 

to wit: “[p]ayment of any claim or obligation by the Fund under this Act shall be subject to the 

United States Government acquiring by subrogation all rights of the claimant or State to recover 

from the responsible party.27 Any person, including the Fund, who pays compensation pursuant 

to this Act to any claimant for removal costs or damages shall be subrogated to all rights, claims, 

and causes of action that the claimant has under any other law.”28 Importantly here, the OPA also 

provides parties with the right to have their disputes resolved by a federal court.29 

The statute uses the phrase “all rights” without stating any temporal limitation. The word 

“all” is itself the quintessential word used to indicate an absence of limits. Because the statute 

does not place any temporal limits on the phrase “all rights,” the Congressional intent for a 

claimant to preserve “all” of its subrogation rights against a responsible party is clear. As the 

22 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 23 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 24 33 CFR Part 136. 25 33 CFR 136.105. 26 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 27 33 U.S.C. § 2712(f). Emphasis added, noting this language imposes a threshold requirement that must be satisfied 

before the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can be used to pay a claim. 28 33 U.S.C. § 2715(a). 29 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b).
8

OSLTF’s trustee, the NPFC must decide how to best vindicate its subrogation rights against a 

responsible party, not the claimant. 

Should a claimant limit its rights in any way, the claimant cannot transfer “all rights” by 

subrogation to the Fund were it to compensate the claimant. In the claim at hand, the claimant 

limited the rights it could subrogate to the Fund in several ways. First, the Dispute Resolution 

provision in the Claimant’s contract with the responsible party is limiting language. Second, the 

claimant entered into mediation to resolve its rights against the RP. Finally, the claimant 

commenced a court action to enforce the settlement agreement and obtained a judgment on its 

claim in the state court. 

If the OSLTF were to pay claims when the claimant has limited its options to recover against 

a responsible party, as the claimant has here, the deterrent purpose of OPA would be eliminated 

by turning the Fund into an insurance policy for both oil spillers and companies that make 

business-driven or litigation (or pre-litigation) decisions that result in limited rights against those 

oil spillers. “The Act provides limited compensation when the party responsible for an oil spill is 

unavailable. It does not function as a private insurance company.”30 

Importantly here, the OPA also provides parties with the right to have their disputes resolved 

by a federal court.31 Congress intended that, subject to a very limited exception not implicated 

here,32 “the United States district courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all 

controversies arising under [OPA] and that venue shall lie in any district in which the discharge 

or injury or damages occurred, or in which the defendant resides.... [T]he Fund shall reside in 

the District of Columbia.”33 

The rights provided by 33 U.S.C. § 2717 are important. The ability to have a controversy 

resolved by a federal court is not a trivial right. Although Olympus had the absolute right to enter 

into an agreement to resolve all of its disputes by mediation and then enforce the resulting 

settlement in state court, Olympus has thus restricted or limited its remaining rights against the 

RP. Having done so, Olympus is not eligible for OSLTF reimbursement. If the NPFC paid 

Olympus’ claim, then under subrogation, the NPFC would be bound by the results of Olympus’ 

actions as opposed to NPFC commencing its own action in a federal court as contemplated by 

OPA. Olympus’ business decision to have a dispute resolution provision in their contract, 

followed by the agreed upon mediation, and thencommencing a court action against the RP are

fatal to Olympus’ claim. 

Olympus no longer has “all rights” that it originally would have had and could assign to the 

government. The court in Rich Franklin stated unequivocally, “[u]nder the OPA, specifically [33 

U.S.C.] § 2712(f), [it is the] NPFC [that] has the authority to make decisions regarding recovery 

against a responsible party after receiving all subrogation rights from a claimant.”34 The court 

30 Gatlin Oil Co. v. United States, 169 F.3d 207, 213 (4th Cir. 1999). 31 33 U.S.C. §2717(b). 32 Those cases which involve state and federal claims for removal costs or damages can be brought together in a 

state forum rather than requiring plaintiffs to bring their OPA claims exclusively in federal court. See, 33 U.S.C. 

§2717(c). See, Tanguis v. M/V WESTCHESTER, 153 F.Supp.2d 859 (E.D. La. 2001) for a more detailed discussion. 

See also, 33 U.S.C. § 2717(a)(also not implicated).

33 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b) (emphasis added). 34 Rich Franklin Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 2008 WL 337978 (D. Or. 2008).