CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/1/2010 

Claim Number : 911004-0001

Claimant : State of Texas 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $4,011.26

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On July 30, 2009 tar balls, patties, and mats were discovered on the 

Gulf Beach of Matagorda Island in Calhoun County, Texas. Matagorda Island is on the 

Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States. The tar balls, patties, and 

mats spill was reported to the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) and State On-Scene 

Coordinators (SOSCs) and responded to the incident. It was 

determined that approximately 300 gallons of tar balls, patties, and mats washed ashore. 

The source and responsible party (RP) are unknown. TGLO’s on-scene personnel 

coordinated with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR), MSSD3 

 to take the lead for clean-up and disposal. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Martin Midstream (Martin) was 

hired for the removal and disposal of the tar balls, patties and mats on the 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 August 20, 2009. Invoices include TGLO personnel and equipment expenses 

(vehicle use) for mitigation of the spill. 

3. The Claim: On October 15, 2010, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

removal costs in the amount of $4,011.26. 

TGLO is claiming personnel expenses of $728.92 for two employees, State equipment 

expenses of $2,784.33, other expenses for fuel costs and disposal of 179.11, and indirect 

expenses of $318.90. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, copies of 

EnviroSolutions Non-Hazardous Special Waste Manifests, Texas General Land Office 

and United States Coast Guard Agreement, photographs, and TGLO Response Summary. 

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 was provided by MSSD3 of the United States 

Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi. 

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. 

 

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

$4,011.26 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 911004-0001. The Claimant states that 

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

incident on July 30, 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 $4,011.26 as full compensation for the 

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

claim # 911004-0001. 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: $4,011.26

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/18/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: