3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION

Claim Number: 915107-0001 

Claimant: Texas General Land Office

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $5,004.31 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On May 14, 2015, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO) was notified of 

fresh crude oil tar mats on the beach of South Padre Island, Cameron County, TX. TGLO 

personnel responded and discovered approximately 200 lbs of fresh crude oil tar mats on the 

beach and in the surf zone of the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States. 

TGLO contacted USCG MSD Brownsville who authorized TGLO personnel to take the lead in 

the response and investigation. TGLO activated Chemical Response & Remediation Contractors 

(CRRC) to respond for the pollution removal activities. An investigation conducted by TGLO 

personnel as to the source of the fresh crude oil tar mats was unsuccessful.1 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On May 14, 2015, CRRC personnel 

responded under the supervision of TGLO and removed all of the fresh crude oil tar mats from 

the beach of South Padre Island. The tar mats were properly disposed of at U.S. Ecology Texas, 

Inc, Robstown, TX.2

The Claim: On September 8, 2015, TGLO submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

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

personnel, equipment and contractor costs in the amount of $5,004.31.3

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”. 

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”. 33 USC § 2701(31). 

Removal costs include any 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 TGLO Expedited Small Claim Package dated September 8, 2015

2 Id.

3 Id.
4

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. 

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. MST1 of Coast Guard MSD Brownsville provided FOSC coordination 

33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712 (a)(4)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 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. 

 

4 See TGLO/USCG Agreement signed by MST1 dated 31 Aug 2015.
5

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. 

The NPFC has determined that the majority of the costs incurred by the Claimant in this 

determination were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the incident. Upon 

review of the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC has determined that the 

payable costs were billed in accordance with the rate schedule and/or contractual agreements 

in place at the time the services were rendered and were determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the NCP. The only cost denied by the NPFC is the rate charged by CRRC for 

the use of their 16’ Utility Trailer. Specifically, CRRC billed $135.00 a day for the use of 

that trailer while their rate schedule only allows $100.00 a day for the use of that trailer. As 

such, the NPFC only allowed $100.00 of the $135.00 billed by CRRC and claimed by the 

TGLO.

The NPFC therefore determines that the OSLTF will pay $4,969.31 as full compensation for 

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

claim # 915107-0001. 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: $4,969.31

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: October 13, 2015

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: