3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916050-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $269.80 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi reports that on February 

07, 2016, a spill of oil was discovered in the Aransas Bay, Aransas 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 five gallons of oil 

spilled from an unknown source in Texas coastal waters. The SOSC coordinated with the Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and mobilized TGLO equipment for cleanup and disposal 

purposes of the discovered waste oil. 

The Responsible Party (RP) is unknown. 

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 five gallons of waste oil in the water. After consulting with the FOSC, TGLO was 

authorized to take the lead for cleanup and response. 

3. The Claim: On May 05, 2016, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of its uncompensated removal costs in the amount of 

$269.80 for response services provided on February 07, 2016. 

 

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 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]. 
4

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]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. FOSC coordination has been established by Sector Corpus Christi. 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B)

and 2712(a)(4);

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 was not 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.
5

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 confirmed that the costs were incurred and that they were billed in accordance 

with state rates at the time the services were provided. The FOSC has confirmed 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 on 

September 28, 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 reading the corresponding documents, the response by the State was 

determined to be reasonable and necessary. On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines 

that the Claimant incurred $269.80 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 #916050-0001. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $269.80 as full compensation for the 

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

#916050-0001. 

AMOUNT: $269.80

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/9/16 

Supervisor Action: Approved