2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N21021-0001

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $3,501.63

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $3,501.63

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On Apri 14, 2021 at approximately 2:10 pm local time, the Texas General Land Office 

(TGLO) made a notification to the National Response Center (NRC), via report # 1302671 and 

reported that a recreational boat had discharged an estimated 15 gallons of diesel fuel into the

Dickinson Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.

1

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Texas City, in its 

capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and TGLO, in its capacity as the State On 

Scene Coordinator (SOSC), responded to the incident and found the M/V DELTA PEARL 

actively releasing diesel fuel into the Dickinson Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.2

The FOSc tried to reach the owner of the vessel but was unsuccessful so they opened the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) and contracted Oil Mop LLC (Oil Mop or OSRO) with a 

ceiling of $25,000 in order to remove the fuel onboard the vessel and in the water.3 TGLO, in its 

capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), jointly oversaw and monitored the removal 

and cleanup operations performed by Oil Mop throughout the response.

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, (“Mr. ” or “RP”) is 

identified as the responsible party (RP) 4for the incident that resulted in a discharge of oi from 

the M/V DELTA PEARL5 (“RP), is the owner and operator of the vessel and 

the responsible party (RP) as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.6 OMI Environmental 

Solutions (“OMI” or “OSRO”), commenced cleanup operations on the water after being hired by 

the FOSC. TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $3,501.63 on June 14, 2021.7 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after 

careful consideration has determined that $3,501.63 is compensable and offers this amount as 

full and final compensation of this claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

 

1 NRC Report # 1302671 dated April 14, 2021.

2 SITREP-POL One dated April 14, 2021.

3 SITREP-POL Two and Final dated April 14, 2021.

4 33 U.S.C. § 2701.

5

.USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated April 16, 2021.

6 USCG Administrative Order # 21:002 dated April 16, 2021.

7 TGLO Original Claim Submission dated June 11, 2021 received June 14, 2021.
3

Incident

On April 14, 2021, TGLO and MSU Texas City responded to a report of a sunken 

recreational boat that was discharging diesel fuel.

8 Upon arrival, TGLO’s Response Officer

(RO) and the FOSCR witnessed several gallons of diesel on the deck of the vessel. The RO 

assisted by FOSCR personnel, deployed 3 bags of sorbent boom around the sides and stern of the 

vessel.9 The FOSCR attempted to contact the owner of the vessel, Mr. , but was 

unsuccessful so the FOSCR federalized the spill and hired OMI to conduct cleanup.10 The cause 

of the spill was considered to be due to high tides over taking the vessel allowing diesel to be 

released from the tank vent on the starboard side of the vessel.11 The vessel had been aground in 

shallow water since January 2021 and no pollution had been observed until April 14, when it was 

reported to the TGLO.12

Recovery Operations

On April 14, 2021, upon responding to the spill, TGLO responded to the scence and 

deployed 3 bags of sorbent boom around the stern of the vessel. The FOSC hired OMI on April 

14, 2021 and upon arrival, OMI placed a containment boom around the vessel and the sorbents 

deployed by the USCG and TGLO were replaced with fresh sorbents.13

On April 15, 2021, the RO met with FOSCR personnel to take them out to oversee the 

removal of the diesel that was still aboard the vessel. The owner had contacted the USCG and 

OMI and agreed to cover the cost of the clean up at that moment in the response which was 

estimated to total $8,000.14 OMI removed the diesel inside of the containment booms with 

sorbents, then pumped off approximately 400 gallons from the vessel and the vent where the 

diesel was observed to be coming from was plugged. At 6:30 pm, TGLO left the scene when 

OMI stopped removing diesel from the vessel because both totes were full of diesel.15

On April 16, 2021, at 10:00 am, TGLO Response Officers were on scene to oversee the 

removal of the remaining diesel. Approximately 240 gallons of diesel were removed, bringing 

the total removed from the vessel to approximately 640 gallons.

16

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

Claims for removal costs or damages may first be presented to the Fund by the Governor of a 

State for costs that are incurred by the State.. The spill was federally funded on April 14, 2021, 

and the owner paid OMI for costs on April 15, 2021. The remainder of the response for April 

16, 2021 was paid for under the federal project number that the FOSC opened on April 14, 2021. 

 

8 NRC Report # 1302671 dated April 14, 2021.

9 TGLO Incident Summary for Case # 2021-1402 dated April 21, 2021

10 USCG Pollution Investigator statement of dated Mary 25, 2021.

11 TGLO Response Officer Summary Notes, Summary of the Cause, dated April 14, 2021.

12 Id.

13 TGLO Response Officer Summary Notes, Investigation, dated April 14, 2021.

14Id.

15 TGLO Response Officer Summary Notes, Investigation, dated April 14, 2021.

16 Id.
4

The RP did not speak to TGLO’s Response Officers at the scene of the spill incident and has not 

returned any of TGLO’s phone calls.17

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On June 14, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from Texas 

General Land Office in the amount of $3,501.63 dated June 11, 2021. The claim included the

Original Claim Submission, Texas Oil or Hazardous Substances Discharge or Spill Report, 

NPFC Incident Response Cost Invoice, six photos of the incident scene, Oil Spill Prevention & 

Response Program Incident Report, Response Officer Summary and Texas General Land Office 

Vessel Assessment Form.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

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

or conclusions reached by other entities. 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.

V. DISCUSSION: 

When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the existing federal and states 

laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required large taxpayer subsidies for 

costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to victim’s recoveries such as legal 

defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly favoring those responsible for the 

spills.”18 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”19 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”20

 

17 TGLO Response Officer Summary Notes, Response Issues, dated April 14, 2021.

18 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722).

19 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).

20 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).
5

 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

 

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that all costs incurred and 

submitted by TGLO herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the 

appropriate state published rates and all approved costs were supported by adequate 

documentation and outlined as a joint assessment and response by the FOSC.

VI. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Texas General Land Office request for uncompensated removal costs 

is approved in the amount of $3,501.63.

 

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 USCG POLREP demonstrates the prescence of MSU Texas City and TGLO Response Officer on scene 

overseeing the response actions that were determined to be consistent with the NCP. After reviewing the USCG 

POLREPs, the USCG Administrative Order, the TGLO Summary of actions, and all available incident 

documentation, the amounts claimed by TGLO are supported by the record. The FOSCR also confirmed through 

POLREP notes that the actions performed by Oil Mop LLC were determined to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan.

25 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.