CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 8/11/2009 

Claim Number : 909099-001

Claimant : State of Texas 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $1,247.83

FACTS: 

 

Oil Spill Incident: On October 16, 2006 an oil spill was discovered in the Cow Bayou in 

Orange County, Texas, a navigable water of the United States. The State on Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC), , of the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), 

responded and discovered 5 barrels of oil discharged in the Texas coastal waters at the 

Capco Energy, Inc. (Capco) facility, creating a visible sheen/sludge on the water. The 

SOSC coordinated with Capco, the responsible party (RP) and with the Federal On Scene 

Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR), MST1 , who authorized TGLO 

to take the lead for immediate response. 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: TGLO response officer monitored 

the response actions and ensured the clean-up was consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) and TGLO response officer also ensured that no further 

discharge occurred from the site. 

The Claim: On June 1, 2009, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs 

in the amount of $1,247.83. The RP paid the administrative penalty that had been 

assessed by the Texas General Land Office associated with the incident. The case was 

sent to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for collection. The OAG closed the 

case on December 31, 2008 because the RP had filed a voluntary petition for 

reorganization under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas on April 7, 2008. 

TGLO is claiming personnel expenses of $451.67, State equipment expenses of $617.75, 

and indirect expenses of $178.41. The claim consists of: TGLO invoicing, memo from 

TGLO Coastal Law Section to their file summarizing outcome for collection by TGLO 

on their spill case # 2006-3541, a copy of TGLO’s referral package to the Assistant 

Attorney General for recovery of costs which are subject of this claim, a copy of certified 

billing to the Responsible Party, TGLO copies of photographs, and the Claims Manager 

obtained a copy of the Coast Guard MISLE case for this incident. 

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).
"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. The FOSC coordination was provided by MST1 who was a member of 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Port Arthur at the time of the incident. . 

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 on time. 

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 costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below. 

B. Analysis 

The NPFC Claims Manager has 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, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. 

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

$1,247.83 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by 

the OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the 

Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim# 909099-001. The Claimant states that 

all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this 

incident on October 16, 2006. 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 determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,247.83 as full compensation for the 

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

claim # 909099-001. 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 Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $1,247.83

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/12/09

Supervisor Action: Approved