4

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On December 29, 2021, Sector North Carolina received a NRC notification of a mystery 

sheen in the Neuse River at the Oriental Marina and Inn in Oriental, NC. Upon arrival, Pollution 

Responders from MSD Fort Macon observed what appeared to be dark oil in the water.7 The F/V

PREACHER MAN was the suspected source at the time because it had sunk at the pier on 

December 22, 2021 and was submerged nearby, but no discharge was apparent.8 The FOSCR 

opened the fund and hired Atlantic Coast Marine Group to contain and recover the product.9 

Responsible Party

 

No responsible party was identified. According to the FOSCR, the USCG team “collected 

samples from F/V SAVANNAH GIRL, F/V PREACHER MAN, and two other vessels (CAPT 

JEFF, MISS KAYDEN) in the vicinity on January 3, 2022 and shipped them to the Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Lab for testing. None of the samples matched the product identified on December 

30, 2021.”10 

Recovery Operations

On December 31, 2021, Atlantic Coast Marine Group (ACMG) was hired, arrived on scene 

and deployed boom to prevent further oil movement and reduce the environmental impact. The 

FOSCR monitored the removal and cleanup operations. 11 12 On December 31, ACMG recovered 

19 bags of oil saturated sorbent pads and on January 1, an additional 13 bags were collected 

bringing the total to 32 bags. 

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On March 22, 2023, the claimant submitted a removal cost claim to the NPFC for 

$6,854.9513. After reviewing Mr. claim, it was corrected to be a Real and Personal 

Property claim. The claim included a written estimate to have the vessel’s hull sides cleaned, 

bottom sandblasted and bottom repainted. Claimant also included the USCG Certificate of 

Documentation for the vessel DAY DREAM. 

On April 4, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from the claimant regarding 

the condition of the vessel before and after the spill, evidence that demonstrated the value of the 

vessel before and after the spill, and an explanation of the location where the vessel was docked. 

On April 17, 2023 the claimant provided the NPFC photos VH001-VH006 that showed the 

injury to the vessel due to the incident. Photo VH007 showed where the vessel was moored 

7 Email from FOSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated April 18, 2023. 8 Email from FOSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated April 18, 2023. 

9 USCG SITREP-Pol One dated January 1, 2022. 10 Oil Sample Analysis Report, Marine Safety Laboratory Case Number 22-025 dated January 12, 2022. 11 USCG SITREP-Pol One dated January 1, 2022. 12 Email from FOSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated April 18, 2023. 13 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated March 10, 2023.

(b) (6)
5

during the two-night period when the spill occurred.14 On May 3, 2023, the NPFC requested 

additional information to include the assessed value of the vessel, photo VH008 and evidence of 

the last time the vessel was hauled out of the water and when the bottom was cleaned and 

painted. On May 4, 2023 the claimant provided the vessel’s State Farm Insurance policy but did 

not provide evidence of when the vessel was last painted or cleaned.15 On May 24, 2023, the 

NPFC requested evidence of when the claimant bought the vessel since the prior owner of the 

vessel was shown on the Certificate of Documentation for the vessel in the system and the 

claimant provided the Bill of Sale effective July 29, 2021.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).16 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.17 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.18 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence. 

V. DISCUSSION: 

 Under OPA, a RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil 

discharge or a substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States. An 

RP’s liability is strict, joint, and several. When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized 

that the existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, 

required large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens 

to victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.” OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred damages where the 

responsible party has failed to do so. The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims. 

14 Additional Information Email from Mr. to NPFC dated April 17, 2023. 15 Emails between NPFC and Claimant Re Additional information dated April 4, 2023, April 17, 2023, May 3, 2023, 

May 4, 2023 and May 24, 2023. 16 33 CFR Part 136. 17 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 18 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them).

(b) (6)
6

The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation 

deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and properly process the 

claim. 

OPA defines a “claim” to mean “a request made in writing for a sum certain, for compensation 

for damages or removal resulting from an incident.” An “incident” under OPA is defined as any 

occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, involving one or more vessels, 

facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in the discharge or substantial threat of discharge 

of oil. 

OPA defines “oil” as “oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil 

refuse, and oil mixed with the wastes other than dredged spoil, but does not include any 

substance which is specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under 

subparagraphs (A through (F) of section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC § 9601) and which is subject to the 

provisions of that Act [42 USCA Section 9601 et seq.].” 

Property Damage Claim

Mr. claimed $6,854.95 in removal costs and after reviewing the claim submission the 

NPFC corrected the type of claim to a Real or Personal Property claim and notified the 

claimant.

19 As discussed above, the NPFC requested additional information multiple times in 

order to validate the claimant’s alleged damages. 

33 CFR 136.215 requires proof of: 

(1) An ownership or leasehold interest in the property; 

(2) That the property was injured or destroyed; 

(3) The cost of repair or replacement; and

(4) The value of the property both before and after injury occurred. 

33 CFR 136.217 states: 

(a) The amount of compensation allowable for damaged property is the lesser of— 

(1) Actual or estimated net cost of repairs necessary to restore the property to substantially 

the same condition which existed immediately before the damage; 

(2) The difference between value of the property before and after the damage; or

(3) The replacement value.

19 Email to Claimant Re Claim Update dated June 7, 2023.

(b) (6)

8

and claimant stated the bottom was cleaned on the last haul out October 2022, after the incident. 

However, claimant could not provide evidence of a clear date when the bottom paint was last 

applied to the vessel. 

As noted in the table below, claimant requested $4,919.57 to sandblast the entire bottom of the 

vessel, apply three coats of barrier paint and two coats of bottom paint, along with the supplies 

necessary to complete the work. As noted above, claimant has failed to provide evidence that the 

bottom paint on the vessel was damaged due to the oil spill.26 These costs are denied.

The NPFC approves $1,935.38 in costs to repair the vessel’s hull damaged by the oil spill 

incident. The remaining $4,919.57 in costs are denied because the claimant failed to demonstrate 

there was oil damage to the bottom paint. 

VI. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Mr. property damage claim is approved in the amount of 

26 Email from Claimant Re Additional Information dated May 4, 2023.

(b) (6)