3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 915101-0001 

Claimant : State of Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $1,540.44 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector Houston/Galveston reports that on 

March 2, 2015, a spill of oil was discovered in Lavaca Bay, Calhoun County, Texas, a navigable 

waterway of the U.S. The State of Texas General Land Office (TGLO) State On–Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC) responded and found approximately one gallon of oil in Texas 

coastal waters. The SOSC coordinated with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and hired 

Clean Tank+ for disposal purposes.

At this time, no Responsible Party (RP) has been identified, and a source has not been confirmed. 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The Claimant, TGLO, was part of the initial 

response to the spill site. As the State On-Scene Coordinator, it responded and found 

approximately one gallon of oil in the water. After consulting with the FOSC, the Clean Tank+ 

was contracted by TGLO for cleanup and response, where it placed boom and pads before 

disposing of them.

3. The Claim: On August 12, 2015, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

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

$1,540.44 for response services provided on March 2, 2015. 

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: 

"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”.
4

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. FOSC coordination has been established by Sector Houston/Galveston.1

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters.

3. A Responsible Party could not be determined. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1)

5. 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.

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

and determined what removal costs presented were for actions in accordance with the NCP, and if 

 1 See TGLO/USCG Sector Houston/Galveston Agreement, signed 3/02/2015 .
5

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 validated the costs were incurred and confirmed they were billed in accordance 

with state rates at the time services were rendered. The FOSC substantiates that the actions 

undertaken by TGLO as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) were reasonable, necessary and 

performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The Claimant states that all 

costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident on 

March 2, 2015. The Claimant represents that the costs it paid are compensable removal costs, 

payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

After a review of the file, and reading the corresponding documents, the response by the State was 

reasonable and justified. On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant 

incurred $1,540.44 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is payable by the OSLTF as 

full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim # 915101-0001 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,540.44 as full compensation for the 

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

#915101-0001. 

AMOUNT: $1,540.44

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/14/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: