CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N15019-0002 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $945.52 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On February 27, 2015, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified 

of an oil spill in Matagorda Bay, Matagorda County, Texas. TGLO personnel responded and 

discovered the F/V TWO SISTERS grounded and partially sunk in the Bay, discharging 

approximately 400 gallons of oil into the Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States. TGLO 

personnel contacted USCG Sector Corpus Christi who responded and found a second vessel, the 

F/V CAPTAIN SANG, which also grounded and partially sunk in Matagorda Bay, releasing 300 

gallons of oil into the Bay. Coast Guard Personnel offered the vessels owner Mr. , 

according to the Pollution Report (POLREP) released by Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi, the 

opportunity to remove the fuel from his vessels but he declined claiming an inability to fund the 

response.

1

On June 02, 2015, the NPFC, received an email from MST2 , Coast Guard 

Sector Corpus Christi, stating that Mr. was the owner of the F/V TWO SISTERS and 

that Mr. is the owner of the F/V CAPTAIN SANG. As such, the NPFC mailed 

an RP Notification letter to both Mr. and Mr. on June 02, 2015. Upon receipt of this 

claim (N15019-0002), the NPFC sent Mr. another RP Notification on June 16, 2015, 

stating that the Fund is in receipt of this new claim which identifies Mr. as the Responsible 

Party.

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On March 3, 2015, CG Sector Corpus 

Christi accessed the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) and opened FPN # N15019 to 

respond to the discharge of oil from both the F/V TWO SISTERS and the F/V CAPTAIN 

SANG. Coast Guard and TGLO personnel oversaw the deployment of containment boom and a 

diver who removed fuel from the partially sunken vessels with the use of a diaphragm pump.2

The Claim: On June 1, 2015, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs of State 

personnel and equipment costs in the amount of $954.52. 

It is important to note that the State equipment expenses that the claimant is requesting 

reimbursement for are not the same costs that were presented in claim # N15019-0001. 

1 See CG Sector Corpus Christi POLREP 1 dated March 06, 2015.

2 Id.

2 

 
Although the invoice is very similar, these costs are different. The 18 inch containment boom 

that is being claimed here was used around the F/V CAPTAIN SANG.3

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, as 

described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability will include “removal 

costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any form, 

including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged 

spoil”.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is available, 

pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)(4) and 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 

33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan and uncompensated damages. 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”.

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in court to 

recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC §2713(c) and 33 CFR 

136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of 

damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate compensation is 

unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs may be presented to the 

Fund.” 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, 

to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In addition, under 33 CFR 

3 Email dated 2015 06 16 from TGLO to NPFC states that two separate 200’ sections of boom were utilitzed to 

surround each of the sunken vessels. In total – between the two cases – 400’ of boom was utilized. 

3

 
136, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions were reasonable in response to 

the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the authority and responsibility to perform a 

reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, “a claimant must establish -

(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 determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.”

Under 33 CFR 136.205 “the amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated 

reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional 

circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated 

with the FOSC.” [Emphasis added]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi provided FOSC coordination 33 U.S.C. § 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), 

to navigable waters.

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has been 

filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs;

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1);

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with 

the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were for actions in accordance 

with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant had incurred 

all costs claimed. The reviewfocused on: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable 

“removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, 

minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (2) whether the costs were incurred as a result of 

these actions; (3) whether the actions taken were determined by the FOSC, to be consistent with 

the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and 

reasonable.

The NPFC has confirmed that the rates charged by the Claimant are in accordance with the 

published rates at the time services were rendered. Based on the Federal On Scene Coordinator’s 

4
direction and oversight, the response has been determined to be reasonable, necessary and 

performed in accordance with the NCP and as such, is approved. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $945.52 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 

N15019-0002. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal actions as 

that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as 

presented by the Claimant.

AMOUNT: $945.52

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/23/15

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

5