3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N16037-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,376.22

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On June 13, 2016, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified of an 

oil spill “discovered in the Tres Palacios Bay in Matagorda County, Texas.”1 The Palacio Bay is 

a navigable waterway of the U.S. and is part of West Matagorda Bay, a tributary to the Gulf of 

Mexico. TGLO State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC) responded to the spill site and 

discovered approximately 111 gallons of red dyed diesel in the water of Tres Palacios Bay.2

 The 

SOSC coordinated with the USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) 

MST2 . Subsequently, the FOSC federalized the response.3

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Mr. responded to the spill site from 

June 13 through June 14, 2016. State equipment deployed included a utility/response boat and a 

4x4 response vehicle.4

The Claim: On July 5, 2016, the TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

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

State personnel and equipment costs in the amount of $1,376.22. No responsible party has been 

identified to date. 

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”.

 

1 See Texas General Land Office letter to the NPFC dated July 5, 2016.

2 See Texas General Land Office Incident Report dated June 13, 2016.

3 See USCG POLREP dated June 16, 2016

4 See TGLO Invoice for Spill # 20161719 dated July 5, 2016.
4

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. MST 2 , CG Sector Corpus Christi, in his capacity as the Federal OnScene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) for this incident, determined that the 

actions undertaken by the Texas General Land Office were consistent with the NCP. 

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. 

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 by TGLO in the amount of $1,376.22 was submitted within the six-year 

period of limitations for removal cost 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 
5

accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. NPFC 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. 

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. 

Additionally, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) agreed and 

authorized the state’s response plan and has endorsed the actions taken to mitigate the 

effects of the spill. On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the 

Claimant did in fact incur $1,376.22 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 #N16037-0001. The 

Claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by 

the Claimant for this incident on June 13, 2016. 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 $1,376.22 as full compensation 

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

under claim # N16037-0001. 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: $1,376.22

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 7/12/16 

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: