CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N12015-0001 

Claimant : State of Texas

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $252.75 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On February 9, 2012, a private citizen reported a tar patty in the 

vicinity of South Packery Channel, a navigable waterway of the US. Texas General Land 

Office (TGLO) coordinated the disposal of the tar patty with Sector Corpus Christi. The 

Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) opened a federal project number in order to 

contract with TGLO to hire Miller Environmental for the proper disposal of the tar patty. 

Description of removal actions: TGLO and the local Coast Guard unit agreed that the 

Texas General Land Office (TGLO) would pick up the tar patty and the USCG would 

pay for the disposal. TGLO took the tar patty to Miller Environmental who handled 

proper disposal. After disposal was complete, TGLO was informed that the USCG did 

not pay the disposal therefore TGLO paid for the disposal and decided to submit a claim 

for the reimbursement. 

The Claim: Texas General Land Office (TGLO) submitted a removal cost claim to the 

NPFC in the amount of $252.75 for the handling of disposal of a tar patty as agreed with 

Sector Corpus Christi on February 9, 2012. 

The Claimant provided their TGLO Expedited Claim coversheet, summary of costs 

breakdown sheet, miscellaneous email correspondence with the NPFC, Southwest Land 

& Marine daily for disposal of tar patty, Miller Environmental disposal manifest, copy of 

an executed Pollution Removal Funding Authorization (PRFA) between TGLO and 

Sector Corpus Christi, photograph, proof of payment, and copy of Miller invoice. 

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]. 

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 was established via Federal Project Number N12015 by Sector 

Corpus Christi.

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. 

Upon adjudication of this claim, the NPFC confirmed that the services provided by 

Miller were billed in accordance with the Pollution Removal Funding Authorization 

(PRFA) in place at the time services were rendered. The NPFC has determined that 

the actions undertaken were reasonable, necessary and consistent with the NCP. On 

that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur 

$252.75 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 #N12015-0001. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $252.75 as full compensation 

for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim # N12015-0001. 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: $252.75

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/4/12 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: