CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/04/2009 

Claim Number : N08Z28-001

Claimant : State of Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $446.76 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Galveston 

Case # 446783,1reports that on April 3, 2009, a discharge of approximately 150 gallons 

of oil from the M/V Offshore King was discovered in Galveston Channel, a navigable 

waterway of the US. The Potential Responsible Party (PRP) was determined to be 

Offshore Specialty Fabricators, the operator of the M/V Offshore King. 

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on April 3, 2009 at 

approximately 01:29 local time via report # 901692 by Mr. of Hoernbeck 

Offshore Services.2

 USCG MSU Galveston responded and assumed Federal Control of 

the spill since, initially, no RP had been determined. T & T Marine Salvage was hired 

out to conduct cleanup operations. All vessels in the vicinity of the spill were sampled by 

MSU Galveston to determine responsibility. Because the M/V Offshore King was seen 

leaving the scene of the discharged oil shortly after the spill was discovered, USCG MSU 

Lake Charles sampled the vessel for MSU Galveston. Analysis of the samples showed a 

match between the M/V offshore King and the oil found at the spill site.3

 

1. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, State of Texas General Land 

Office (TGLO), was part of the initial response to the spill site. State On-Scene 

Coordinator Mr. coordinated with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, PO 

, USCG. As T & T Marine Salvage was hired for the cleanup, Mr. 

s role was simply to monitor and assist the cleanup efforts of the contractor.4

T & T Marine Salvage’s cleanup was consistent with the National Contingency Plan.5

3. The Claim: On October 15, 2009, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the amount of 

$6,389.78 for the services provided on April 3, 2009. This claim is for removal costs 

based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were provided. A copy of the 

vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of USCG 

Case Report # 446783, a copy of NRC Report # 901692, a copy of TGLO Spill Report # 

09-1019, pictures and internal email correspondence. 

 

1

See Marine Safety Unit Galveston’s Coast Guard Case # 446783 opened 4/3/2009

2

 See, NRC report # 901692, dated April 3, 2009 

3

See Marine Safety Unit Galveston’s Coast Guard Case # 446783 opened 4/3/2009

4

 See Claim submission forms, submitted by State of Texas to the NPFC on 10/15/2009. 

5

 See USCG Federal Project N09Z28, opened 4/03/2009. 
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 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 consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

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. The FOSC coordination has been established via USCG Case # 446783.6

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 CA made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has received no 

response. 

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that all 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. 

The Claims Manager confirmed that the claimant did in fact perform a joint site assessment 

with the USCG. The Claims Manager validated the costs incurred and determined they were 

reasonable and necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP).

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

$446.76 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 #N09Z28-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident on April 3, 

 

6

See Marine Safety Unit Galveston’s Coast Guard Case # 446783 opened 4/3/2009
2009. 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 $446.76 as full compensation for the 

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

#N08Z28-001. 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: $446.76

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/4/09

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: