CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 5/10/2010 

Claim Number : 910102-001

Claimant : State of Texas 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $2,668.82

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On January 20, 2010, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) 

investigated a mystery oil spill discovered in Tres Palacios Bay, Matagorda County, 

Texas, a navigable waterway of the US. TGLO coordinated with MST1 of the 

Coast Guard (CG) while conducting initial response. An estimated ten (10) gallons of oil 

was found in the bay. 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: TGLO conducted initial assessment 

and follow up response. TGLO contracted Palacios Marine and Industrial Coatings 

(PMIC) to clean up the spill. 

The Claim: On May 7, 2010, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Fund Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs 

in the amount of $2,668.92.

TGLO is claiming personnel expenses of $130.40, State equipment expenses of $172.18 

and indirect expenses of $57.70. Invoices include Incident billing summary, photos, 

invoices, and proof of payment.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines, as described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability 

will include “removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"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 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. MST1 provided a FOSC coordination statement dated January 20, 2010. 

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 on time. 
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 the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant 

had incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the actions taken 

were compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 

CFR 136 (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 determined by the FOSC, to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the 

FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact 

incur $2,668.82 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly 

payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs 

incurred by the claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #910102-001. The 

claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred 

by the claimant for this incident on January 20, 2010. The claimant represents that all 

costs paid by the claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as 

presented by the claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $2,668.82 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim # 910102-001. All costs claimed are for charges 

paid for by the Claimant for removal actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

 

AMOUNT: $2,668.82

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/11/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: