2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: UCGP922007-URC001

Claimant: Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $76,058.62 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $74,401.11 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 29, 2020 at approximately 12:10 pm local time, Forefront Emergency 

Management made a notification to the National Response Center (NRC), via report # 1291052 

and reported that an unknown of amount of oil was found coming from a storage tank.

1

 The oil 

discharged into Lake Fortuna, a navigable waterway of the United States.2 

United Stated Coast Guard (USCG) Sector New Orleans Incident Management Division

(IMD), operating in the capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (“FOSC”), responded to 

the incident and found oily product leaking from a damaged storage tank on an offshore platform 

actively releasing crude oil into Lake Fortuna, a navigable waterway of the United States.3 The 

source was determined to be the Saratoga Test Facility (NWF561).4 The FOSC contacted Lobo 

Operating, LLC (“Lobo” or “RP”) to advise of the damaged storage tank and of the subsequent 

discharge. Lobo took responsibility for the discharge and hired Environmental Safety and Health 

Consulting Services, Inc. (“ES&H” or “Claimant”) to respond.5

 ES&H personnel deployed a 

containment boom around the facility and completed cleanup operations.6 The FOSC oversaw 

and monitored the removal and cleanup operations performed by ES&H throughout the 

response.7

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Lobo Operating, Inc. (“Lobo” or 

“Operator/Permittee”) and Saratoga Resources Inc. (“Saratoga” or “Owner/Lessee”) are

identified as the responsible parties (RP) 8 for the incident that resulted in a discharge of oil from 

the Saratoga Test Facility (NWF561).

9

 Saratoga Resources Inc. (“RP”), is the owner/lessee of 

the facility and Lobo Operating Inc. the operator/permittee are both identified as the responsible 

parties (RP) as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.10 ES&H presented its uncompensated 

removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $76,058.62 on December 

 

1 USCG MISLE Activity # 7087401 dated October 30, 2020. 2 NRC Report # 1291052 dated October 30, 2020. 3 Email from FOSC to NPFC dated December 29, 2021 regarding incident details. 4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 IAP’s pdf, ICS 201 – 2A, page 3 of 115. 7 Email from FOSC to NPFC dated December 29, 2021 regarding incident details. 8 33 U.S.C. § 2701.

9 Email from FOSC to NPFC dated December 29, 2021 regarding incident details. 10 Contract Operator Agreement dated March 7, 2017, Exhibit A. 

(b) (6)
3

15, 2021.11 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that 

$74,401.11 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

 On October 29, 2020, USCG Sector New Orleans performed an overflight of the lake 

Fortuna area after Hurricane Zeta and discovered a discharge of what appeared to be oily product 

leaking from a damaged storage tank on an offshore platform.

12 Sector New Orleans IMD

contacted a representative of Lobo Operating and the RP took responsibility for the discharge 

and hired ES&H to respond.13 ES&H arrived on scene and placed absorbent booms between the 

platform and the containment boom. ES&H utilized a pump connected to a fuel operated tote 

tank that continued to vacuum product during the evening, while the response team was not 

present.14

Recovery Operations

The RP contacted Forefront Emergency Management who made proper notifications and 

then hired the ES&H. to perform cleanup operations.15 ES&H arrived on scene on October 30, 

2020 and performed an assessment of the incident and noticed the tank on the south side of the 

facility had collapsed and was partially hanging over the water with minimal oil remaining 

inside. ES&H personnel deployed a containment boom around the facility.16 On October 31, 

2020, it was determined that the middle tank was leaking so ES&H personnel attempted to slow 

the release using absorbent pads, a skimmer, and a vacuum pump to aid in recovery operations. 

On November 1, 2020, ES&H utilized a wash pump to wash oil from the surface of the 

platform and collected the oily-water mixture via a suction pump. The oily-water was stored in a 

tote tank. The first tote tank was completely filled with 250-gallons of oily-water mixture and all 

future oily-water was directed into a second tote tank that held 350-gallons.17 

 On November 3, 2020, ES&H personnel noticed dark patches of material within the 

containment on the south and west sides of the facility. Personnel observed oil on the surface of 

the platform, on the surface of the water, and appeared to be originating from an area between 

the collapsed tank and the middle tank. ES&H collected the saturated absorbents from the 

waterway and from the platform of the facility. An oiled Clapper Rail was observed perched on 

top of the containment boom on the south side of the platform. ES&H personnel safely retrieved 

 

11 ES&H Claim Submission Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated December 13, 2021. 12 Email from FOSC to NPFC dated December 29, 2021 regarding incident details. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Email between Claimant and NPFC dated January 4, 2022 confirming no contract is in place between RP and 

Claimant. 16 Lobo Incident Action Plan (IAP) for Invoice 1-57908 page 3 of 115. 17 Lobo Incident Action Plan (IAP) for Invoice 1-57908 page 29 of 115.
4

the bird and placed it into a secure container. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

took possession of the bird and transported it to Wildlife Response Services, LLC.

18 

Two bales of absorbent boom were deployed outside of the platform prior to overnight 

operations and recovery. Personnel stored the equipment and collected all pollution bags, 

placing them on ES&H’s response vessel. Scare cannons were deployed to deter avian activity 

during overnight operations.19 All personnel departed the facility and no sheening was observed 

outside of containment area at the end of the day. 

Mr. , Representative for Lobo, requested ES&H keep the roll-off boxes on rent 

at their location after November 9thin anticipation of any additional residual product that may be 

released from the site. 20

Responsible Party 

The Saratoga Test Facility (NWF561) is owned by Saratoga Resources Inc. and Lobo 

Operating, Inc. is the operator/permittee. Both entities were determined to be the responsible 

parties (RP) for the oil spill incident.21

The NPFC issued a Responsible Party (RP) Notification letter dated December 21, 2021 to 

Lobo Operating, Inc.22 The NPFC used the last known address provided by online records for 

Saratoga Resources, Inc. The notifications were sent through United States Postal Service 

(USPS) certified mail. Mr. confirmed receipt of the operator/permittee’s RP Notification 

Letter. The notification sent to Saratoga Resources Inc. was returned to the NPFC by USPS on 

January 18, 2022 via Covington, Louisiana because the forwarding order for this address was no 

longer valid.23

A Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the owner/lessee and/or operator/permittee

that a claim was presented to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking 

reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of response services 

performed that resulted from a vessel or facility that was identified as the source of a discharge 

or substantial threat of a discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States. The Claims 

Manager received a phone call from Mr. , representative for Lobo Operating, Inc., who 

provided additional information regarding the status of the Saratoga Test Facility NWF561. Mr. 

emailed the Contract/Operator Agreement with Saratoga Resources Inc., to the NPFC and 

explained its efforts to date to reimburse the Claimant.24

 

18 Wildlife Response Documentation Response Report Summary dated November 3, 2020 and IAP’s Invoice 1-

57908 page 63 of 115.

19 Lobo Incident Action Plan (IAP) for Invoice 1-57908 page 64 of 115. 20 Email between Claimant and NPFC dated January 18, 2022 Re Additional Information. 21 Email between FOSC and NPFC dated January 3, 2022. 22 NPFC RP Notification Letter dated December 21, 2021. 23 USPS Undeliverable RP Notification Letter confirmation for Saratoga Resources, Inc. 24 Phone Call Conversation Log between RP and NPFC dated January 5, 2022 and Contract Operator Executed 

Agreement dated March 17, 2017.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
5

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

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

1990 (OPA)25 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.26 

Claimant submitted its claim for removal costs to the responsible party on December 28, 

2020.27 Mr. of Lobo Operating responded to the NPFC’s RP Notification letter on 

January 5, 2022 whereby it stated that tried to discuss payment with ES&H however they were 

frustrated with Lobo due to non-payment.28 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On December 15, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from

Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $76,058.62 dated 

December 13, 2021. The claim included the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Modified Claim 

Form, Invoice 1-57908, Invoice 1-58535, IAP’s (Invoice 1 57908), Invoice 1 57908 Supervisor 

Logs, map of the incident site, Photo Documentation, Spill Response Notification Form, Wildlife 

Response Documentation, Written Notifications to Agencies, and email correspondence with the 

RP.

 The NPFC made multiple requests for additional information to ES&H who provided the 

following: 2020 Emergency Response Rate Schedule, 3rd Party payment receipts 10-59846 2, 10-

59846, 10-60692, 10-60989, 4 photos demonstrating boom storage locations, replacement boom 

quote from manufacturer, and email responses answering NPFC questions. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

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

or conclusions reached by other entities. 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: 

When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the existing federal and states 

laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required large taxpayer subsidies for 

 

25 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 26 33 CFR 136.103. 27 ES&H claim submission dated December 13, 2021. 28 January 5, 2022 email from NPFC to Lobo recapping phone conversation regarding liability.

(b) (6)
6

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.”29 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.”30 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.”31

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).32 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.33 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.34 

 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.35

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.36

 

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

and submitted by ES&H herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

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

appropriate state published rates and all approved costs were supported by adequate 

documentation and outlined in the Lobo Operating Incident Action Plans for the incident 

response. 

 

29 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). 30 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 31 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 32 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 33 33 CFR Part 136. 34 33 CFR 136.105. 35 Email from USCG FOSCR dated December 29, 2021 demonstrates the response actions 

performed by ES&H were determined to be consistent with the NCP. After reviewing all available incident 

documentation, the amounts claimed by ES&H are supported by the record. The FOSCR also confirmed through 

email that the actions performed by the OSRO were determined to be consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan.

36 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.

(b) (6)

8

Date of Supervisor’s review: 1/31/2022 

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: