4

The FOSC and TGLO, in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), both 

responded to the incident and found a red dye diesel oil sheen located in the Conn Brown 

Harbor, a navigable waterway of the United States.6 No vessels on the scene took responsibility 

for the spill. TGLO and the FOSC determined that upon investigation, no source could be 

identified. 

Recovery Operations 

 

On September 25, 2021, upon investigation of the incident, the FOSC hired Miller 

Environmental as a contractor to conduct removal and disposal operations. The red dye diesel oil 

was removed by a drum skimmer, absorbent pads, and absorbent booms. Spill removal, clean-up, 

and disposal was completed by the contractor.7

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Claims for removal costs or damages may first be presented to the Fund by the Governor of a 

State for costs that are incurred by the State. The FOSC could not determine a Responsible 

Party.8 TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the NPFC on December 21, 

2021.9 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

TGLO presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $310.44 on December 21, 2021.10 The claim included a TGLO Signed Claim 

cover sheet, Invoice, Spill case documentation, and TGLO Incident Report. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).11 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement. 

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.12 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

 

6

 SITREP dated September 25, 2021 and TGLO Original Claim Submission page 1 of 16 dated December 21, 2021. 

7

 SITREP dated September 25, 2021. 

8

 SITREP dated September 25, 2021. 

9

 TGLO Original Claim Submission dated December 21,2021. 

10 Id. 

11 33 CFR Part 136. 

12 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)).
5

or conclusions reached by other entities.13 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence. 

V. DISCUSSION: 

 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).14 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.15 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.16

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan.17

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.18

Upon review and adjudication of the claim, the NPFC reached out to the FOSC to confirm the 

presence and joint response by TGLO.19 Chief from Sector Corpus Christi confirmed 

the presence of TGLO on scene during RP investigation for the incident.20 The NPFC confirmed 

that the labor and vehicle charges were billed in accordance with the published state rates.21

VI. CONCLUSION: 

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Texas General Land Office request for uncompensated removal costs 

is approved in the amount of $310.44.

 

13 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 

14 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 

15 33 CFR Part 136. 

16 33 CFR 136.105. 

17 The FOSC federalized the incident and determined all actions undertaken were reasonable, necessary and 

determined to be consistent with the NCP. 

18 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 

19 January 5, 2022 email from NPFC to FOSC regarding TGLO involvement as SOSC. 

20 January 5, 2022 email from FOSC to NPFC re TGLO presence as SOSC. 

(b) (6)