3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N15037-0001 

Claimant : State of Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $1,370.95 

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 the Gulf of Mexico, Galveston 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 200 gallons

of oil in Texas coastal waters. The SOSC coordinated with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC), who opened a Federal Project Number (FPN) and hired OMIES for cleanup of the 

incident. 

At this time, no Responsible Party (RP) has been identified. 

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, OMIES was 

contracted for cleanup and response, where it placed boom and pads followed by proper 

disposal. 

3. The Claim: On August 13, 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 $1,370.95 for response services provided from June 19-26, 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 
4

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]. 
5

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. Sector Houston/Galvestion, as the FOSC for this incident, determined that the actions

undertaken by the Claimant are deemed consistent with the NCP. 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) 

and 2712(a)(4);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 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 that the costs were incurred and also confirmed that they were 

billed in accordance with the state rates at the time services were rendered. The FOSC has 

determined 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 from June 19-26, 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 corresponding FPN documents, the response by the State has 

been determined to be reasonable and necessary in accordance with the NCP. On that basis, 

the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant incurred $1,370.95 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 # N15037-0001

 1 See TGLO/USCG Sector Houston/Galveston Agreement, signed 3/02/2015 .
6

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,370.95 as full compensation for 

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

claim #N15037-0001. 

AMOUNT: $1,370.95

 

Claim Superviso

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/18/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: