2

Claim Number: 918001-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $384.49 

FACTS: 

TGLO # 2017-0741 

Oil Spill Incident: On March 10, 2017, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified of a 

mystery oil spill at Mile Marker 45 of the beach on Mustang Island in Nueces County, Texas., The oil 

affected the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States. State On-Scene Coordinator 

(SOSC) responded and found approximately 59 gallons of oil on the adjoining shoreline of 

Texas coastal waters . The mystery oil spill produced one 4’x 2’ x 1” tar mat which washed ashore on 

Mustang Island Beach.2

 

MST2 of USCG Sector Corpus Christi provided Federal On-Scene Coordination. 3

 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: TGLO investigated a tar mat found by a Port 

Aransas City Beach worker.4

 TGLO responded to the spill and hired Corpus Christi Area Oil Spill 

Control Association to handle the response and disposal of the tar mat.5

. 

The Claim: On October 19, 2017, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs consisting of TGLO personnel 

expenses in the amount of $19.78, TGLO equipment expenses for a 4x4 truck/response vehicle in the 

amount of $142.95, and disposal by Corpus Christi Area Oil Spill Control Association totaling $221.76. 

The total claimed amount is $384.49.6

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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 

 

1 See, TGLO Incident Report Form. 2 See, Texas Oil or Hazardous Substances Discharge Spill Report dated March 10, 2017. 3 See, TGLO/USCG Agreement Form dated March 14, 2017. 4

See, TGLO Response Officer handwritten daily field notes. 5 See, TGLO claim submission form dated October 19, 2017. 6 Texas General Land Office Oil Spill Prevention & Response Program Incident Response Cost Invoice.
3

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 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. MST2 of 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 National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.