4

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On September 1, 2023, the NRC received a report of a mystery sheen that discharged into 

Tampa Bay, Port Manatee, FL, a navigable waterway of the United States.9 Sector St. 

Petersburg dispatched a response team immediatedly to the scene and found approximately 3,500 

gallons of what appeared to be heavy fuel oil at berth nine of Port Manatee.10 

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the source which 

caused the oil spill is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.11 Oil samples were taken by 

the USCG in attempt to determine the source and responsible party of the incident, but no 

responsible party has been identified. In 2006, there was another large oil spill of 900 gallons in 

Port Manatee that was from the Florida Power & Light (FPL) pipeline. Samples from vessels and 

pipelines previously used by FPL were taken as FPL was a potential responsible party for this 

spill. The samples were sent to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Lab for oil classification analysis 

and to verify potential sources.12 The oil sample results revealed the spilled oil was heavy fuel 

oil and the suspected source samples were non-matches.

13

Recovery Operations

USCG Sector St. Petersburg, in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), 

opened Federal Project Number UCGPM2340 and hired contractors to contain the discharge and 

to commence oil removal/decontamination operations.14

On September 1, 2023, contractors arrived on scene and deployed containment boom and 

sorbent materials.

15 The FOSC oversaw the response and removal actions. USCG conducted 

safety and operation briefings daily.16 Recovery operations continued from September 1 to 

September 21, 2023. All pressure washing and cleaning of the sea wall and 

decontamination/demobilization was completed on September 21, 2023.17

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On September 19, 2023, the NPFC received a claim for $1,464.83 from .18 

 provided the NPFC with an OSLTF claim form, cost estimate of vessel’s worth, 

9

 USCG SITREP One dated September 6, 2023. 10 USCG SITREP Two dated September 10, 2023. 11 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 12 USCG SITREP Two dated September 10, 2023. 13 United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Laboratory Cases #23-068 & #23-073. 14 Id. 15 USCG SITREP One dated September 6, 2023. 16 USCG SITREP Six dated September 22, 2023. 17 Id. 18 claim submission received September 19, 2023.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
5

photos of the oiled vessel, and an invoice from O’Neill’s Marina with an estimate for cleaning 

and polishing the vessel.19

 On October 3, 2023 the NPFC requested additional information from relative to 

the costs claimed.20 On October 4, 2023, replied to the NPFC’s request, providing 

vessel registration and confirmation that his vessel was underway on September 2, 2023.21

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).22 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.23 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.24 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. 

IV. 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. 

19 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated September 12, 2023 & email from Claimant to NPFC dated September 14, 

2023.

20 Email from NPFC to Claimant dated October 3, 2023. 21 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated October 4, 2023. 22 33 CFR Part 136. 23 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)). 24 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) (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. 

Real or Personal Property 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.

NPFC Analysis

 To prove ownership of the vessel, Mr. provided an active Florida Vessel Registration

which proved he owned the vessel at the time of the incident.25 The claimant proved the vessel

was injured by providing pictures of the oil stained vessel and evidence that his vessel was 

underway during this incident.26

To prove cost of repairs, claimant provided an invoiced estimate from O’Neill’s Marina. The 

estimate included a detail, compound, and wax of the sides of the hull, motor bracket, and motor 

that was stained by the oil.27

The Claims Regulations also require the claimant provide the difference between value of the 

property before and after the damage or the replacement value. The NPFC did not require that 

25 Florida Vessel Registration 26 Images 2 through 3 27 O’Neill’s Marina Estimate

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