2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N20031-0001

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: STATE

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $212.62

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $212.62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On June 5, 2020, at approximately 2036 local time, Mr. , of the Galveston County 

Sherriff’s Department reported to the National Response Center (NRC)1that a black trash bag full of an 

unknown oil washed up on the shore and broke open causing a discharge of the oil onto the beach and 

into the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States..2 United States Coast Guard Sector 

Houston/Galvestion was the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident and performed a joint 

response along with the Texas General Land Office (“TGLO” or “Claimant”) and determined no 

Responsible Party (RP) could be identified. The FOSC hired a response contractor who cleaned up the 

incident, performed testing to ensure the product was oil and handled proper disposal. The FOSC opened 

Federal Project Number #N20031.

The Claimant then presented its uncompensated removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $212.62 in personnel and vehicle costs. The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

consideration, has determined that $212.62 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final 

compensation of this claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On June 5, 2020, at approximately 7:55 pm, TGLO Response Officer reported that he was 

notified by Chem-Tell of an unknown oil had come from a trash bag that washed up on the beach on the 

Boliver Penninsula.3 The TGLO Response Officer contacted Sector Houston/Galveston who mobilized a 

Pollution Investigator from Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Texas City.4 The FOSC opened a Federal Project 

Number (FPN) and hired a response contractor, T & T Marine to handle the cleanup and disposal since no 

responsible party was identified.5 The FOSC advised that the trash bag contained oil filters that were 

actively discharging oil upon his arrival.6

Recovery Operations

 

1 NRC Report # 1278971 dated June 5, 2020.

2 NRC Report # 1278971, Description of Incident ection, dated June 5, 2020.

3 TGLO Incident Report for Spill Case 2020-1716.

4 USCG MISLE Case # 1220186.

5 TGLO Incident Report for Spill Case 2020-1716.

6 Email from MST3 to NPFC dated August 3, 2020.

(b) (6), (b) (b) (6), (b) (b) 
3

T & T Salvage was hired by the FOSC and arrived on scene. The spill was estimated to be around 30 

gallons of waste oil.7 By the time responders had arrived, the oil had soaked into roughly 1000 square 

feet of sand to a depth of approximately 1⁄4 inch to 3/8 inch deep. The contractor removed the oily sand. 

Testing performed by T &T Salvage confirmed that the substance was oil.8

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On July 24, 2020, NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from the Texas General 

Land Office dated July 23 totaling $212.62.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).9 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.10

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.11 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).12 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.13 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.14

 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;

 

7 Email from MST3 to NPFC dated August 3, 2020.

8 Email from MST3 to NPFC dated August 3, 2020.

9 33 CFR Part 136.

10 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)).

11 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).

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

13 33 CFR Part 136.

14 33 CFR 136.105.