2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916039-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office (SOSC) 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,272.44 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On November 10, 2015, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) received notification 

by phone of a possible oil spill in Tres Palacios Bay in Matagorda County, Texas. State On-Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC), , responded to the scene the same morning and discovered 3 gallons of 

oil floating in the Tres Palacios Bay, a navigable waterway of the U.S. adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Subsequent to investigating the scene, the SOSC was unable to confirm the source of the oil spill. Clean 

Tank Inc. was hired to conduct appropriate pollution removal activities.1

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On November 10, 2015, the Texas General Land 

Office hired Clean Tank Inc. to remove approximately three (3) gallons of oil found in Tres Palacios Bay. 

Clean Tank Inc. responded by placing and removing sorbent pads from the water. Cleanup activities were 

completed the same day and one (1) drum of oiled sorbents was transported by CTI Oil Field Services to 

U.S. Ecology Texas for proper disposal.2

 

The Claim: On February 26, 2016, the Texas General Land Office submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Fund Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs totaling 

$1,272.44. 

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]. 

 

1 See, Texas General Land Office Claim dated February 26, 2016. 2 See, Texas General Land Office Claim dated February 26, 2016.
3

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. MST3 , CG Sector Corpus Christi, as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s 

Representative (FOSCR) for this incident, determined that the actions undertaken by TGLO

were consistent with the NCP. 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 

 

3 See, Texas General Land Office and United States Coast Guard Agreement dated November 10, 2015.
4

actions taken were determined to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether 

the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

The NPFC confirmed that the actions undertaken were reasonable and necessary and that the services 

were billed in accordance with the state’s rates for reimbursement. On that basis, the Claims Manager 

hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur $1,272.44 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 #916039-0001. The Claimant states that all costs 

claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident on November 10, 

2015. The Claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant are compensable removal costs, payable 

by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant.

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,272.44 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 916039-

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: $1,272.44 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: February 29, 2016

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: