2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N15028-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,655.59

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On April 15, 2015, the Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit (CG MSU) Texas City, 

conducted a joint waterside harbor patrol with the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) in Dickinson 

Bayou, TX. The patrol went to assess the M/V SUMMERWIND, an abandoned, partially submerged, 40 

foot wooden hull vessel. Upon arrival, they observed a sheen of oil discharging into the waters of 

Dickinson Bayou, TX, a navigable waterway of the United States. 1

 

The Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) determined that the vessel 

posed a substantial threat of a further discharge of oil into navigable waters and attempted to contact the 

current owner. Several attempts were made without success (Responsible Party (RP)) so; the FOSCR

issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the current owner and two previous owners. After none of 

the parties were responsive, the FOSCR issued a Notice of Federal Assumption. Additionally, MST1 

of CG MSU Texas City consulted with of the National Pollution Fund Center (NPFC) 

regarding the proposed removal operations. A Federal Project Number (FPN) N15028 was opened so that 

the FOSCR could hire T and T Marine Salvage, Inc., (T & T) to remove the substantial threat of a 

discharge. The FOSCR directed and oversaw booming of the vessel, lifting of the vessel and removal of 

approximately 450 gallons of fuel oil from the vessel’s fuel tanks. The FOSCR verified that the response 

activities were conducted in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: TGLO responded jointly with CG MSU Texas City 

to oversee the response.2

The Claim: On June 16, 2015, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the NPFC for reimbursement of 

its uncompensated removal costs for state personnel and equipment costs in the amount of $1,655.59.3

 

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).

 

1 See USCG POLREP One & Final, M/V SUMMERWIND

2 See TGLO claim submission 

3

 Id. 
3

"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. MSU Texas City provided FOSC coordination 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;
4

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 period of limitations for claims. 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 state invoice 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 NPFC has confirmed that the rates charged by the Claimant are in accordance with the published 

state rates at the time services were rendered and were coordinated with the FOSCR and determined 

to be reasonable, necessary and consistent with the NCP.

Based on the foregoing, the NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,655.59 as full 

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

NPFC under claim # N15028-0001. 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: $1,655.59

 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/18/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: