CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/17/2009 

Claim Number : N09037-001

Claimant : State of Texas 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $9,634.20

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On July 22, 2009 silver dollar-sized tar balls were discovered 

washed up at South Padre Island and Boca Chica Beach in Cameron County, Texas from 

the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable water of the United States. The source and Responsible 

Party (RP) are unknown. The State on Scene Coordinators (SOSCs), , 

, of the Texas 

General Land Office (TGLO), responded and coordinated with and the Federal on Scene 

Coordinator Representative (FOSCR), MST1 , who federalized the 

response with FPN090307. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Chemical Response and 

Remediation Contractors, Incorporated (CRRC) was hired for the removal and disposal 

of the tar balls along the beaches and other impacted areas. The TGLO response officers 

assisted and monitored the response actions and ensured the clean-up was consistent with 

the National Contingency Plan. The clean up continued through July 25, 2009. Invoices 

include TGLO personnel and equipment expenses (vehicle use) for mitigation of the spill. 

3. The Claim: On October 19, 2009, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of $9,634.20. 

TGLO is claiming personnel expenses of $4,702.70, State equipment expenses of 

$2,850.56, and indirect expenses of $2,080.20. 

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 was provided by MST1 of the United States Coast 

Guard MSD Brownsville. 
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 costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below. 

B. Analysis: 

The NPFC Claims Manager has 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, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. 

The NPFC obtained a copy of the Coast Guard MISLE case and associated Pollution 

Reports which corroborate the work that was performed. The response was billed in 

accordance with the vendor rate schedule in place with the claimant at the time services 

were rendered. 

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

$9,634.20 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# N09037-001. The Claimant states 

that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for 

this incident on July 22, 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 determines that the OSLTF will pay $9,634.20 as full compensation for the 

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

claim # N09037-001. 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 Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $9,634.20

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/30/09

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: