2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPN22005-URC001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $664.91 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $664.91

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

 On November 10, 2021 at approximately 3:00 pm local time, an unknown sheen was 

discovered in the Gulf of Mexico on Padre Island, a navigable waterway of the United States.2 

An individual of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) from Sector Corpus Christi (SCC) made 

a notification to the National Response Center (NRC) on November 12, 2021, via report # 

1321818.3

 The USCG SCC, in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and 

Texas General Land Office (“TGLO”” or “Claimant”), in its capacity as the State On Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC), jointly responded to the incident and found crude oil tar balls located on

Padre Island.

4

 The FOSC determined that upon investigation, no source could be identified and 

that a discharge of oil in the form of crude oil tarballs occurred. The FOSC opened the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) via Federal Project Number (FPN) N22005 and contracted with 

Miller Environmental to conduct removal and disposal operations.5

 TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $648.13 dated May 13, 2022.6 On June 17, 2022, TGLO sent a revised 

invoice amending their sum certain from $648.13 to $664.91.7 The NPFC has thoroughly 

reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and 

regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $664.19 is compensable and 

offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim. 

 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor.

2 NRC Report #1321818 dated November 12, 2021.

3 Id.

4 SITREP-Pol One dated November 23, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 1 of 37 dated May 13, 

2022. 5 SITREP-Pol One dated November 23, 2021. 6 TGLO Original Claim Submission dated May 13, 2022. 7 See email from TGLO dated June 17, 2022 which contains a revised TGLO invoice with an amended sum certain.

(b) (6)
3

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On November 10, 2021, TGLO responded to the report of tar balls that washed up on Padre 

Island, a navigable waterway of the United States. TGLO observed 47 tar balls of various sizes, 

approximately 733.34 gallons.8 Miller Environmental was contracted for removal and cleanup 

operations as directed by the FOSC.9 TGLO jointly oversaw and monitored the removal and 

cleanup operations performed by Miller Environmental throughout the response.10

Responsible Party

TGLO and the FOSC determined that upon investigation, no source could be identified.11

Recovery Operations

 On November 10, 2021, 4 of the 47 tar balls were found and assessed. A large field of 

additional tar balls were located but darkness prevented further assessment at 1800 local time.12 

 On November 11, 2021, the FOSC hired Miller Environmental to conduct removal and 

disposal operations.13 Tar balls 5-47 were found and assessed. TGLO departed from the scene 

and will return the following day for jointly oversee clean-up.14

 On November 12, 2021, TGLO, Miller Environmental, and USCG arrived to the scene and 

began clean-up. The tar balls/patties were located and removed by being placed in drums. USCG 

authorized roll off to be transported for disposal.15

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

 TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $664.91 dated May 13, 202216 and revised on June 17, 2022. The claim 

included a TGLO cover sheet, original invoice, revised invoice, rate schedule, spill case 

documentation, and a TGLO Incident Report.17

 

8 NRC Report #1321818 dated November 12, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 1 of 37 dated May

13, 2022. 9 SITREP-Pol One dated November 15, 2021 10 See, USCG Incident Report and Transmittal (IRAT) dated November 15, 2021, page 5 of 58 identifies TGLO as a 

key partner in response for this incident.

11 NRC Report #1321818 dated November 12, 2021. 12 TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 37 dated May 13, 2022. 13 SITREP-Pol One dated November 15, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 37 dated May 13, 

2022.

14 TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 37 dated May 13, 2022. 15 SITREP-Pol One dated and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 37 dated May 13, 2022. 16 TGLO Original Claim Submission dated May 13, 2022. 17 TGLO Original Claim Submission page 9 of 37 dated May 13, 2022.
4

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).18 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.19 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.20 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).21 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.22 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.23

 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.24

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.25

 Upon review and adjudication of the claim, the NPFC contacted the TGLO and made an 

official request for additional information on the accuracy of the personnel time, rate and total 

 

18 33 CFR Part 136. 19 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)). 20 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). 21 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 22 33 CFR Part 136. 23 33 CFR 136.105. 24 SITREP-Pol One dated November 15, 2021 25 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.