3

Recovery Operations 

After being notified by NRC, TGLO Response Officer, , SOSC, arrived on scene 

coordinated with the FOSC Petty Officer for the recovery of tar balls throughout tar ball season. 

All recovered tar balls are to be placed in a roll off box that Miller Environmental had staged at their 

facility at the request of the FOSC.9

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On March 4, 2020, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from Texas General 

Land Office dated March 3, 2020 in the amount of $183.50.

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).10 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.11

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

entities.12 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.

IV. DISCUSSION: 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

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

 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;

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.13

 

9 USCG SITREP-Pol Five and Final dated November 5, 2019. 10 33 CFR Part 136. 11 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)). 12 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). 13 USCG SITREP-Pol One through Five and Final dated November 5, 2019.

(b) (6) (b) (6)