CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N15019-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $5,558.06 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On February 27, 2015, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified 

of an oil spill in Matagorda Bay, Matagorda County. TGLO personnel responded and discovered 

the F/V TWO SISTERS grounded and partially sunk in Matagorda Bay, discharging 

approximately 400 gallons of oil into the bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.1

 

TGLO personnel contacted USCG Sector Corpus Christi who responded and found a 2nd vessel, 

the F/V CAPT SANG, also grounded and partially sunk in Matagorda Bay, TX. CG personnel 

offered the vessel owner Mr. 2 owner of both vessels, according to the pollution report 

(POLREP) released by CG Sector Corpus Christi, the opportunity to remove the fuel from his 

vessels but he declined claiming an inability to fund the response.3

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: On March 3, 2015, CG Sector Corpus 

Christi accessed the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and opened FPN # N15019 to respond to the 

discharge of oil from both the F/V TWO SISTERS and the F/V CAPT SANG. CG and TGLO 

personnel oversaw the deployment of containment boom and a diver who removed fuel from the 

partially sunken vessels with the use of a diaphragm pump.4

 

The Claim: On June 1, 2015, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Fund Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs of State personnel 

and equipment costs in the amount of $5,558.06.5

 

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). 

1 See TGLO Expedited Small Claim Package dated June 1, 2015.

2 See email from MST2 , CG Sector Corpus Christi to Mr. dated June 2, 2015, 

stating that Mr. was the owner of the F/V TWO SISTERS but Mr. was the owner of the 

F/V CAPT SANG. As such, the NPFC mailed an RP identification letter to both Mr. and Mr. on June 2, 

2015.

3 See CG Sector Corpus Christi POLREP 1 dated March 6, 2015.

4 Id.

5 See TGLO Expedited Small Claim Package dated June 1, 2015. 

2 

 
"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”. 

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”. 33 USC § 2701(31). 

Removal costs include any 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). 

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. 

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. PO of Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi provided FOSC coordination 

33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712 (a)(4); 

3 
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 within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1); 

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 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 NPFC has confirmed that the rates charged by the Claimant are in accordance with the 

published rates at the time services were rendered. Based on the Federal On Scene 

Coordinator’s direction and oversight, the response has been determined to be reasonable, 

necessary and performed in accordance with the NCP and as such, is approved. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $5,558.06 as full compensation for 

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

claim # N15019-0001. 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 the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $5,558.06

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: June 5, 2015

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

4