3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N17034-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $823.40 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On July 6, 2017, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified of a mystery 

oil spill at West Sabine Pass Channel a navigable water of the Untied States in Jefferson County, Texas. 

State On Scene Coordinator Mr. responded to and found 20 gallons of oil in Texas coastal 

waters1

. The mystery oil spill produced two 3’x 4’ x 10” tar mats which washed ashore on Texas Point 

Beach. 

USCG MSU Port Arthur2

 federalized the response utilizing FPN N17034-0001. 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: TGLO investigated two tar mats found by USCG 

& USFW on Texas Point Beach.3

 An estimated quantity of oil discharged into navigable waters was 20-

gallons.4

 The USCG hired Garner Environmental Services (Garner) to respond and clean up the spill.5 

The Claim: On August 25, 2017, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs of TGLO personnel expenses in 

the amount of $234.08 and TGLO equipment expenses which consist of two 4x4 trucks/response vehicles 

and one 4x4 Polaris Ranger crew UTV, in the amount of $589.32. The total invoice amount is $823.40.6

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under 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. A responsible party’s liability 

will include “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”. 

 

1 TGLO Memorandum, dated 8/25/2017.

2 SITREP-Authorization To Proceed LTJG . 3 SITREP-POL Three and Final. 4 TGLO Memorandum dated 8/25/2017.

5 SITREP-POL Three and Final. 6 Texas General Land Office Oil Spill Prevention & Response Program Incident Response Cost Invoice.
4

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”.

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. LTJG of Coast Guard MSU Port Arthur provided FOSC coordination under 

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 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 on time;

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 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 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 determined that rates charged are in accordance with the State’s published rate schedule in 

place at the time services were rendered and that the services provided are appropriate as the Claimant 

worked jointly with the Coast Guard FOSC. The NPFC has also determined that the actions undertaken 

by the Claimant were reasonable, necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP).

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $823.40 as full compensation for the reimbursable 

removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # N17034-0001. 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: $823.40

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 08/31/2017 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: