Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS 

CLAIM SUM11ARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

913066-0001 

Texas General Land Office 

State 

Removal Costs 

$414.17 

On October 2, 2012, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) responded to a mystery oil spill in Seadrift 

County Harb.or. 1 State OSC (SOSC) observed four separate areas of waste oil deposition 

with sheen along the bulkhead of the harbor.2 Vessels in the vicinity of the harbor were investigated but 

no source for the oil was found.3 The Seadrift County Harbor borders the San Antonio Bay, a navigable 

waterway of the United States. 

Description of Removal Activities for. this Claimant 

On October 2, 2012, State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) responded to the spill and 

coordinated with the Federal On Scene Coordinator's Representative (FOSCR) PO . The FOSCR 

approved TGLO to perform removal activities.4 TGLO placed sorbent pads and boom at the spill site, 

then contracted with Martin Energy to petform removal activities. Th,e contractor collected spent sorbents 

from the site. The cleanup was completed on October 2, 2012 under the oversight of as the 

State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC). 

The Claim 

On October 2, 2012 the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the 

amount of $_414.17. 

TGLO is claiming response expenses in the amount of$414.l 7~ monies paid to Martin Energy, a state 

contractor for the response and removal costs associated with this fuel spill. 

· The claim consists of the claim memorandum, incident report, incident photo log, TGLO response cost 

invoice, invoice frotn Martin Energy to TGLO, and disposal manifests for removed materials. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

"Oil" is "oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed 

with wastes other than dredged spoil" 33 USC§ 2701(23). 

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

33 USC§ 2712(aX4) 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." 

1 See, Texas General Land Office Memorandum, dated May 28, 2013. 

2 See, Texas General Land Office OSPRP Incident Report, dated October 2, 2012. 

3 See, Texas General Land Office Memorandum, dated May 28, 2013. 

· · ·- -· - · · · 4 -see; Texas Generai-und-office·Memorandum-;aated-May 28; 2013 ··' · · 
Pursuant tci 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]. 

Pursuant to 33 USC§ 2713(d), "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 forthe 

uncompensated damages and removal costs may be presented to the Fund." 

Pursuant to 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. 

Pursuant to 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." 

Pursuant to 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, rempval 

activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated with the FOSC." 

Determination of Loss 

Overview 

1. FOSC coordination was made by USCG MSD Victoria via MSTI . 

2. The incident involved a discharge of"oil" as defined in OPA 90, 33 USC§ 2701 (23), that 

presented a substantial threat 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)(l ); 

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 costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable pursuant to OPA 90 and 33 

CFR § 136.025 as set forth below. 

Analysis 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable "removal actions" under OPA and the claims regulations at 33CFR136 (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 consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and 

( 4) whether the costs were adequately documented. 

2 
Upon review of the claim submission, the NPFC has determined that the removal costs presented and 

incurred were billed appropriately and in accordance with all governing rate schedules at the time services 

were rendered. Based on the approval by the FOSC for TGLO to take the lead for response, the actions 

are determined to be reasonable and necessary. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur $414.17 of 

uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #913066-

0001. 

Determined Amount 

The NPFC determines that the OSL TF will pay $414·.17 as full compensation for the reimbursable 

removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to NPFC under claim #913066-0001. All costs 

presented to the OSLTF in this claim are for removal actions as defined in OPA 90 and 33 CFR 136, and 

are compensable removal costs. · 

AMOUNT: $414.17 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date 'of Supervisor's review: 5131113 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: