2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPN20021-URC001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $520.58

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $520.58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On February 22, 2020, the United States Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston (“CG Sector 

Houston-Galveston” or “FOSC”) was notified of an unknown sheen from an unknown source, 

spotted in the waters of the Sabine Pass Ship Channel, Texas.2

 The Texas General Land Office 

(“TGLO” or “Claimant”) arrived on scene as State On-Scene Coordinator (“SOSC”) and 

recorded a black colored sheen of approximately 3 feet by 500 feet.3 CG Sector HoustonGalveston verified the oil substance was located in the Sabine-Neches Waterway, also known as 

the Sabine Pass Ship Channel, Texas; a navigable waterway of the United States.4 No clear path 

of discharge was detected. The substance was identified as refined oil-diesel, but the spill source 

remains unknown.5 

OMI Environmental Solutions (“OMI” or “Contractor”) was notified of the spill and hired by 

CG Sector Houston-Galveston as the oil spill removal organization (OSRO).6

 The FOSC and 

TGLO monitored OMI’s cleanup activity, while the OSRO provided personnel and equipment 

for removal activities.7 TGLO presented its uncompensated removal costs claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $520.58.8 

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

the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $520.58 

of the requested amount is compensable and offers this amount as full compensation of the 

claim. 

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 #1271800. 

3

 USCG Situation Report-Pollution Report 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

4

 MISLE Case Id: 1209954. 

5 See, Texas Oil or Hazardous Substances Discharge or Spill Report, dated February 22, 2020. 6

 MISLE Case Id: 1209954. 

7 See, TGLO Case Officer Response Chronology Report for Case #2020-0634. 8

 TGLO Claim Submission, received November 28, 2022. 

(b) (6)
 

3

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On February 22, 2020, the National Response Center (NRC) received a call from the Sabine 

Pass Port Authority (SPPA) notifying them of an unknown sheen from an unknown source in the 

SPPA Marina.9 The SPPA had a strong diesel smell, alerting marina personnel to the spill 

incident. The NRC notified Sector Houston-Galveston.10

TGLO was notified and arrived on scene to serve as State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), 

while CG Sector Houston-Galveston arrived on scene to serve as Federal On Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC). The FOSC identified the pollution as bilge/waste oil,11 and both CG Sector HoustonGalveston and TGLO suspected a CFV/Shrimp Boat titled DYNO MIKE to be the responsible 

party (RP) for the spill.1213 The vessel owner denied responsibility and samples collected from 

the suspected vessel did not provide any positive results linking the vessel to the spill incident.14

The sheen itself, was identified to be refined oil-diesel.15 Sector Houston-Galveston federalized 

the response under FPN N20021.16

 

Responsible Party 

CG Sector Houston-Galveston worked with TGLO, attempting to locate the source of the 

spill, and to identify a responsible party (RP). CG Sector Houston-Galveston collected samples 

from a suspected vessel in an attempt to designate the responsible party, but tests were negative 

and a RP could not be identified.17 As such, the oil spill was determined to be a mystery spill. 

Recovery Operations 

On February 22, 2020, Sector Houston-Galveston contracted OMI Environmental Solutions 

for the cleanup. OMI arrived on scene then boomed off and began removing the 3 foot wide by 

500 foot long sheen of oil.18 OMI’s activities were monitored by both the SOSC and FOSC, who 

confirmed OMI had returned on February 23, 2020 to remove all the remaining sorbent pads. 

The spill was determined to contain 25 gallons of diesel fuel oil.19 Removal of all oils and waste 

was fully completed on February 23, 2020. 

9

 NRC Report #1271800. 

10 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

11 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

12 See, TGLO Chronology Report for Case #2020-0634. 13 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

14 MISLE Case Id: 1209954. 

15 See, Texas Oil or Hazardous Substances Discharge or Spill Report, dated February 22, 2020 16 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

17 MISLE Case Id: 1209954. 

18 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

19 See, TGLO Chronology Report for Case #2020-0634. 
 

4

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

On November 28, 2022, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from 

Texas General Land Office.20 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).21 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.22 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.23 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. 

IV. 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.”24 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.”25 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).26 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.27 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

20 TGLO Claim Submission, dated November 28, 2022. 

21 33 CFR Part 136. 

22 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)). 23 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). 24 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 

25 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 

26 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 27 33 CFR Part 136. 
 

5

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.28

 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.293031

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.32

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 

appropriate rate sheet pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which 

included invoices and/or proof of payment where applicable. 

V. CONCLUSION: 

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, TGLO’s request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in the 

amount of $520.58. 

This determination is a settlement offer,33 the claimant has 60 days in which to accept this 

offer. Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.34 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a 

settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.35 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon 

the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential. 

28 33 CFR 136.105. 

29 In conjunction with the FOSC, TGLO oversaw the work as well. 

30 MISLE Case Id: 1209954. 

31 SITREP-POL 1 and Final, dated February 22, 2020. 

32 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 

33 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant 

has against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR § 136.115(a). 

34 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 

35 33 CFR § 136.115(b).