3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: UCGPN21033-URC001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $625.76 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $625.76

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On July 11, 2021 at approximately 5:47pm local time, an individual of the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) from Sector Corpus Christi (SCC) made a notification to the National 

Response Center (NRC), via report # 1311412 and reported an unknown sheen in Newport Pass 

Beach, a tributary of the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States.1 The 

USCG SCC, in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and Texas General 

Land Office (“TGLO”” or “Claimant”), in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator 

(SOSC), jointly responded to the incident and found crude oil tar balls located in Newport Pass 

Beach, a navigable waterway of the United States.2 The FOSC determined that upon 

investigation, no source could be identified and that a discharge of oil in the form of crude oil 

tarballs occurred. The FOSC opened the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) under Federal 

Project Number (FPN) N21033 and contracted with Miller Environmental to conduct removal 

and disposal operations.3

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

Center (NPFC) for $625.76 dated December 27, 2021.4

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after 

careful consideration has determined that $625.76 is compensable and offers this amount as full 

and final compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On July 21, 2021, TGLO responded to the report of tar balls that washed up on Newport Pass 

Beach, a navigable waterway of the United States. TGLO observed two tar balls approximately 

10 feet x 10 feet x 2 feet, estimated to be 2,000 gallons.5 Miller Environmental was contracted 

for removal and cleanup operations as directed by the FOSC. TGLO jointly oversaw and 

 

1 NRC Report #1311412 dated July 21, 2021. 2 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 1 of 26 dated December 27, 

2021.

3 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. 4 TGLO Original Claim Submission dated December 27,2021. 5 NRC Report #1311412 dated July 21, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 1 of 26 dated December 

27, 2021.

(b) (6)
4

monitored the removal and cleanup operations performed by Miller Environmental throughout 

the response. 

Responsible Party

TGLO and the FOSC determined that upon investigation, no source could be identified.6

Recovery Operations

On July 21, 2021, upon investigation of the incident, the FOSC hired Miller Environmental 

to conduct removal and disposal operations. After Miller Environmental arrived to the scene, the 

estimated amount of crude oil was updated to 3,184 gallons.7

 The tar balls were wrapped in 

plastic at the end of the night and clean-up was resumed the next day.8 The crude oil tar balls 

were removed by a drum skimmer, bale pads, and absorbent booms. 

On July 22, 2021, Miller Environmental continued clean-up and removal of the crude oil tar 

balls. During removal additional tar balls were found. The total amount of crude oil removed was 

just under 5,000 gallons (4,984).9 TGLO jointly oversaw and monitored the spill removal, cleanup, and disposal that was completed by Miller Environmental.

10

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Claims for removal costs or damages may first be presented to the Fund by the Governor of a 

State for costs that are incurred by the State. The FOSC was unable to determine a spill source.11 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

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

Center (NPFC) for $625.76 dated December 27, 2021.12 The claim included a TGLO cover 

sheet, Invoice, spill case documentation, and a TGLO Incident Report. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).13 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.

 

6 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. 7 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. 8 TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 26 dated December27, 2021. 9 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. and TGLO Original Claim Submission pages 1 & 21 of 26 dated December 

27, 2021. 10SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. 11 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021. 12 Id. 13 33 CFR Part 136.
5

 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.14 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.15 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: 

 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).16 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.17 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.18

 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.19

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.20

Upon review and adjudication of the claim, the NPFC confirmed that the labor and vehicle 

charges were billed in accordance with the published state rates. The NPFC also confirmed that 

the actions undertaken by TGLO were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP.21 

VI. CONCLUSION:

 

14 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)). 15 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). 16 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 17 33 CFR Part 136. 18 33 CFR 136.105. 19SITREP-Pol Ond dated July 23, 2021. 20 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 21 SITREP-Pol One dated July 23, 2021.