2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1

Claim Number: UCGPN23008-URC001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $262.15

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $262.15 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 6, 2022 at approximately 10:00 am local time, Texas General Land Office

(“TGLO” or “Claimant”) notified the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 1354301 that 

they found twelve (12) tar patties that washed ashore on the beach of Sea Rim State Park in the 

Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States.2 TGLO, in its capacity as the State 

On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), assisted and jointly monitored the activities of the response 

contractor.3

 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Port Arthur, in its capacity as 

the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), arrived on scene and conducted an assessment of the 

affected areas and decided to open a Federal Project Number UCGPN23008 in the amount of 

$5,000 to cover the costs of removal and disposal activities performed by Environmental Safety 

and Health Consultants, Inc. (ES&H), as the contracted Oil Spill Response Organization 

(OSRO).4 The FOSC is unable to determine a responsible party for the incident.5 The FOSC

determined that the federal project would remain open through December 2022 in order to fund 

the removal and disposalof any additional tarballs/ tar patties.6

 

TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) in the amount of $262.15 on February 17, 2023.7 The NPFC has thoroughly 

reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and 

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 National Response Center Report # 1354301 sated December 6, 2022. 3 USCG SITREP-Pol Two and Final dated December 14, 2022. 4 USCG SITREP-Pol One dated December 22, 2022. 5 USCG SITREPS-Pol Two and Final dated December 14, 2022. 6 Texas General Land Office claim submission letter dated February 17, 2023.

7 Texas General Land Office claim submission letter dated February 17, 2023. 

(b) (6)
3

regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $262.15 is compensable and 

offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.8

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On December 6, 2022, during a routine patrol TGLO discovered 15 tar patties that had 

washed ashore along the surf-line of Sea Rim State Park East Beach in the Gulf of Mexico, a 

navigable waterway of the United States.

9

 TGLO in its capacity as the State On Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC), collected the tar patties and USCG MSU Port Arthur, in its capacity as the 

FOSC, opened Federal Project Number UCGPN23008 in the amount of $5,000 to fund the costs 

of removal and disposal activities performed by Environmental Safety and Health Consultants, 

Inc. (ES&H), as the contracted Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO).10

Recovery Operations

After notifying the NRC, TGLO Response Officer , recovered approximately 

2.72 gallons of oil from Sea Rim State Park and placed the tar balls in containers for disposal. 

USCG MSU Port Arthur to hired ES&H to handle the disposal.1112

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On February 21, 2023, the NPFC received a claim from Texas General Land Office for its 

uncompensated removal costs dated February 17, 2023 in the amount of $262.15.13

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).14 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.15 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

8 33 CFR 136.115.

9 Claimant Original Submission dated February 17, 2023, page 5 of 14, TGLO Incident Report #2022-4045. 10 USCG SITREP-Pol One dated December 8, 2022. 11 Claimant Original Submission dated February 17, 2023, page 5 of 14, TGLO Incident Report #2022-4045. 12 USCG SITREP-Pol Two and Final dated December 14, 2022. 13 Claimant Original Submission dated February 17, 2023. 14 33 CFR Part 136. 15 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)).

(b) (6)
4

or conclusions reached by other entities.16 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: 

 

 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.”17 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.”18 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).19 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.20 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.21

 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.22

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.23

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

submitted by TGLO herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

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

16 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). 17 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 18 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 19 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 20 33 CFR Part 136. 21 33 CFR 136.105. 22 See USCG SITREP-Pol One dated December 22, 2022. The FOSC hired ES&H under FPN N23008 to recover 

and dispose of tar balls.

23 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.