2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 917019-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $11,389.09 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On February 25, 2017, at approximately 08:30am local time, Cameron 

County Beach maintenance workers discovered tar chunks from a large tar mat consisting of 400 

gallons of spilled, weathered crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable water of the U.S. The 

oil was located behind the Schlitterbahn Beach Resort on South Padre Island, Texas1

. The 

Cameron County Beach maintenance workers reported their discovery to the Texas General 

Land Office (TGLO). TGLO personnel and U.S. Coast Guard personnel from Marine Safety 

Detachment Brownsville responded on scene.2

 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: On February 25, 2017, county workers 

performed some cleanup work, including using a front loader to pull the chunks to shore; 

however Bryant Industrial Services, LLC (BIS) was contracted to remove the tar chunk material 

from the beach and dispose of it.3

. 

Responsible Party: A Responsible Party was not identified.

The Claim: On May 23, 2017, TGLO initially submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of $11,389.09 in uncompensated removal 

costs for TGLO personnel and equipment costs, and BIS contractor costs4

. However, after the 

NPFC notified TGLO of a personnel time calculation error by BIS, TGLO sent the NPFC an 

email on June 30, 2017 amending its removal cost claim to a new, reduced total of $10,849.095

. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (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. Removal costs are those 

“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 

 

1 See NRC Report #1171904

2 Texas General Land Office claim submission letter dated May 23, 2017,page 1. 

3 Texas Oil or Hazardous Substances Discharge or Spill Report.

4 See Texas General Land Office claim submission letter dated May 23, 2017.

5 See Texas General Land Office New Sum Total Removal Cost Email on June 30, 2017.
3

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.” 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. PO of Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment Brownsville provided FOSC 

coordination in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 33 U.S.C. § 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4); 

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 C.F.R. § 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 within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1); 
4

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 the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable under OPA 

and 33 C.F.R. § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the claimant. The review 

focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the 

claims regulations at 33 C.F.R. § 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 were directed by the FOSC, and 

(4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

The NPFC confirmed that the claimed costs were properly documented, were necessary and 

reasonable, were performed in accordance with the NCP, and that the rates under which the contractor 

charged the Claimant were in accordance with the contractor’s published rates at the time services 

were rendered. The NPFC also verified that BIS was paid by TGLO for its services. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the Claimant has demonstrated entitlement to full reimbursement 

of the amended amount claimed and the OSLTF will pay $10,849.09 as full compensation for the 

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

917019-0001. All costs claimed are for charges incurred 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 

the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $10,849.09 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 7/05/2017 

Supervisor Action: Approved. 

Supervisor’s Comments: