3

to smoke and catch fire. The vessel sank, leading to a potential discharge of diesel fuel into the Core 

Creek, a navigable waterway of the United States.

10

On December 17, 2019, the Beaufort Fire Department served as the first responders on scene at the 

incident.11 At 2147, responders contacted CG Sector North Carolina, who arrived on scene at 2217 to 

conduct an on scene investigation.12 CG Sector North Carolina served as the FOSC for the spill cleanup. 

The Beaufort Fire Department directed ACMG to respond to the oil spill on December 17, 2019.13 CG 

Sector North monitored ACMG’s cleanup activity.14

Responsible Party 

The FOSC identified Mr. as the Owner of the Melissa Ann II15 and determined that the vessel 

posed a substantial threat of a discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States on December 17, 

2019.16Mr has been identified as the Operator of the vessel at the time of the sinking.17

The NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to the Owner on May 27, 2020,18 and issued 

a Responsible Party Notification Letter to the Operator on July 9, 2020.19 The NPFC has received no 

notification or response from Mr. . The NPFC was notified by Mr that he received the 

claimed costs from ACMG as of July 17, 2020.20 Mr. did not provide a response to ACMG 

regarding payment of the invoiced costs. 

Recovery Operations

On December 17, 2019, ACMG was notified of the Melissa Ann II’s potential oil spill release into the 

Core Creek at the Core Creek Marina, under the Core Creek Bridge, in Beaufort, North Carolina. ACMG

was directed to assist with cleanup and removal of the spill.

21 ACMG arrived on-site and began oil 

cleanup and vessel removal operations on December 17, 2019.22

ACMG boomed off the area surrounding the Melissa Ann II and personnel removed the vessel and all 

vessel fuel tanks from the waterway.

23 Full cleanup of Melissa Ann II’s oil spillage was completed on 

January 6, 2020.24

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

 

10 SITREP 1 dated December 17, 2019. 11 NRC Case Number 1266697 dated December 17, 2019. 12 CG North Carolina Incident Management Timeline. 13 USCG Witness Statement Form dated December 23, 2019. 14 CG North Carolina Incident Management Timeline. 15 CG Investigator statement dated January 21, 2020. 16 USCG Witness Statement Form dated December 23, 2019. 17 Email from the NPFC to the ACMG dated July 9, 2020. 18 RP Notification Letter dated May 27, 2020. 19 RP Notification Letter dated July 9, 2020. 20 Email from the NPFC to the ACMG dated July 21, 2020. 21 USCG Witness Statement Form dated December 23, 2019. 22 ACMG claim submission received June 23, 2020. 23 USCG Witness Statement Form dated December 23, 2019. 24 ACMG Invoice #2020-TB117 dated January 1, 2020.

(b) 

(6) 

(b) 

(6) (b)

(b) 

(6) 

(b) (b) 

(6) (b) (6) 
4

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)25 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the responsible party before 

seeking compensation from the NPFC.26

ACMG submitted its request for compensation to Mr for $30,403.25 on January 29, 202027

and submitted its request for compensation to Mr. for $30,403.25 on July 17, 2020.28 ACMG has 

received no notification or response from either of the RP’s. 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP denies payment on a claim, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.29 On 

June 23, 2020, the NPFC received a claim for $30,403.25 from ACMG, signed without a date.

30 The 

NPFC began the adjudication process of the claim submission on June 24, 2020. 

 On July 9, 2020, the NPFC notified ACMG of their failure to make proper presentment to Mr. 

the operator of the vessel at the time of the incident. The NPFC provided the RP’s contact information 

and requested the Claimant submit all costs to the second RP and provide the RP with 90 days to respond, 

and/or deny the costs.31 Costs were received by the RP on July 17, 2020.32 No reply was made by the 

second RP in response to the invoiced costs therefore the NPFCbegan its adjudication of costs on October 

15, 2020. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).33 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.34

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.35 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: 

 

25 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 26 33 CFR 136.103(c)(1). 27 UPS Certified Mail Reciept dated January 29, 2020. 28 Email from the NPFC to the ACMG dated July 21, 2020. 29 33 CFR 136.103. 30 ACMG claim submission received June 23, 2020. 31 Email from the NPFC to the ACMG dated July 9, 2020. 32 Email from the NPFC to the ACMG dated July 21, 2020. 33 33 CFR Part 136. 34 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)). 35 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) (b) 

(6) (6) 

(b) 

(6) (b)
5

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

responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”36 The term “remove” or 

“removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from water and shorelines or the taking of other 

actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”37 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP).38 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.39 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.40

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.4142

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.43

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of costs incurred and 

submitted by ACMG herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet 

pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and/or proof of 

payment where applicable.

The amount of compensable costs is $30,303.25, while $100.00 is deemed non-compensable for the 

following reasons: 

1. ACMG cites usage of their Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with the CG Shore Infrastructure 

Logistics Center (SILC),

44 as explanation for all costs submitted with the claim.45 ACMG 

invoiced $100.00 in costs associated with an Anchoring System for December 17, 2019.46 Since 

the Anchoring System costs are not specified in the BOA, the $100.00 cannot be validated, and 

the NPFC denies the $100.00 in costs associated with the Anchoring System. 

Overall Denied Costs: $100.0047

 

36 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 37 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 38 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 39 33 CFR Part 136. 40 33 CFR 136.105. 41 USCG Witness Statement Form dated December 23, 2019. 42 CG North Carolina Incident Management Timeline. 43 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 44 Atlantic Coast Marine Group, Inc. BOA #HSCG84-16-A-P00047. 45 Email from ACMG to the NPFC dated July 2, 2020. 46 ACMG Invoice #2020-TB117 dated January 1, 2020. 47 Claim 920029-0001 Summary of Costs spreadsheet.
6

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

outlined above, ACMG’s request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in the amount of 

$30,303.25. 

This determination is a settlement offer,48 the claimant has 60 days in which to accept this offer. 

Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.49 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a settlement offer 

at any time prior to acceptance.50 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon the unique facts giving 

rise to this claim and is not precedential.

 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 10/20/2020 

Supervisor Action: Offer Approved

 

48 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant 

has against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR § 136.115(a). 49 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 50 33 CFR § 136.115(b).

(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)

(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)

(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)

(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)

(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)(b) (6), (b)