3

independently, the relevant statutes and regulations, and ultimately approved the claimed costs 

associated with oil staining on the vessel’s hull sides totaling $1,935.38. Claimant failed to 

provide evidence to support damage to the bottom of the vessel, due to the oil spill . The 

NPFC’s initial determination is hereby incorporated by reference. 

II. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: 

The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim.6 The claimant has the burden of providing all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by NPFC’s Director to support 

the claim.7

 When analyzing a request for reconsideration, the NPFC performs a de novo 

review of the entire claim submission, including any new information provided by the 

Claimant in support of his request for reconsideration. The written decision by the NPFC is 

final.8

On June 15, 2023, the NPFC received Claimant’s timely request for reconsideration, which 

consisted of a photo of the bottom of his vessel and a statement that alleged the photo “clearly 

illustrates damage to the bottom of the boat as caused by the oil spill”, which includes 

“significant paint flaking”. Finally, Claimant alleged that “This is clearly indicative of damage to 

the bottom of the vessel caused by the oil spill as claimed previously in my original submittals”.9 

III. ANALYSIS ON RECONSIDERATION:

The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim in accordance with our governing claims 

regulations at 33 CFR 136.115(d). 

The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed and considered the Claimants’ request for 

reconsideration. 

As noted above, Claimant’s request for reconsideration included a photo of the bottom of the 

vessel that he stated was taken when he pulled the vessel out of the water on June 14, 2023 to 

clean the bottom in preparation for a regatta that upcoming weekend.10 Claimant alleged the 

photo clearly illustrates damage to the bottom of the boat as caused by the oil spill.11 Claimant 

also noted significant paint flaking and the stained waterline in the photo which he alleged was 

caused by the oil spill.12 Additionally, on June 19, 2023, Claimant sent a photo of the the 

vessel’s rudder which he alleged illustrated flaking paint caused by the oil spill.13

6 33 CFR 136.115(d). 7 33 CFR 136.105(a).

8 Id. 9 Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration dated June 15, 2023

10 Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration dated June 15, 2023. 11 Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration dated June 15, 2023. 12 Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration dated June 15, 2023. 13 Email from Claimant Re Another pic dated June 19, 2023.
4

The NPFC advised Mr. on multiple occasions to provide any additional information 

he would like to have considered in reconsideration of his claim.

14 On July 24, 2023, Claimant 

provided four more emails; one email arguing that the bottom paint was damaged as a result of 

exposure to petrochemicals during the oil spill; and three other emails with photographs that 

show the bottom paint at the waterline area and below, where the Claimant argues “the greatest 

concentration of the oil spill was in contact with the vessel over the 36-hour period, clearly 

shows that the paint was dissolved and “eaten away” from the bottom of the boat”. Claimant 

also argues the “flaking paint on the hull and rudder and the damage to the side of the hull were 

caused by the oil spill”.15

Characteristics of Weathered Light Fuel Oil and Lubricating Oil

 

 On January 1, 2022, USCG Sector North Carolina took samples of the oil in order to 

determine the responsible party for the incident. According to the sample analysis results, the 

samples taken contained slightly weathered light fuel oil mixed with lubricating oil.16 The NPFC 

contacted the USCG Marine Safety Laboratory (MSL), who analyzed these samples, to 

determine if the oil would have remained on the surface of the water or if the oil would have 

entered the water column and contaminated a vessel’s bottom as asserted by the Claimant. The 

supervisor of the MSL stated that “the only way your particular spill would have entered the 

water column, based on the chromatograms, would be if dispersant had been added to the spill. 

Otherwise, there is no degradation or other criteria met that would make this mixture go 

subsurface”.17 The NPFC reviewed the incident information connected to this spill and the 

invoice of costs provided by that the Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) that responded to 

this incident; no mention of dispersants to clean up this spill were documented.18

 Density is the property used by the petroleum industry to define light or heavy crude oils. 

Density is also important as it indicates whether a particular oil will float or sink in water.19 The 

density of water is 1.0 g/cm3 at 15°C and the density of most oils ranges from 0.7 to 0.99 g/cm3, 

most oils will float on water.20 As the density of seawater is 1.03 g/cm3, even heavier oils will 

usually float on it21. The oils found in the samples taken were Fuel Oil whose density ranges 

from 0.750 to 0.978722 and Lubricating Oil’s whose density ranges from 0.8728 to 0.9271.23

14 Email from NPFC to Claimant dated June 20, 2023, July 5, 2023 and July 19, 2023. 15 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated June 19, 2023 Re Additional Photo referencing rudder illustrating flaking 

paint.

16 See USCG Marine Safety Laboratory Oil Sample Analysis Report 22-025 dated January 12, 2022. 17 Email from Supervisor, Marine Safety Laboratory to NPFC dated June 29, 2023. 18 ACMG Invoice 2022-T21 dated February 1, 2022. 19 Hollebone, Bruce P., Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology, First Edition. Edited by Merv Fingas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., The Oil Properties Data Appendix – 

A, page 577. 20 Hollebone, Bruce P., Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology, First Edition. Edited by Merv Fingas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., The Oil Properties Data Appendix – 

A, page 577.

21 Hollebone, Bruce P., Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology, First Edition. Edited by Merv Fingas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., The Oil Properties Data Appendix – 

A, page 577.

22 Hollebone, Bruce P., Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology, First Edition. Edited by Merv Fingas.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., The Oil Properties Data Appendix – 

A, pages 609, 622, 637. 23 Hollebone, Bruce P., Handbook of Oil Spill Science and Technology, First Edition. Edited by Merv Fingas.

(b) (6)
5

These ranges corroborate the fact that the oil spilled would not have gone subsurface or caused

any damage to the bottom of the vessel’s hull. 

 

The photos24 Claimant submitted with the initial claim documented oil staining at the 

waterline of the vessel’s hull, which is indicative of how the oil spilled and remained on the 

surface of the water during this incident.25 The NPFC’s initial offer compensated Claimant for 

that staining. 

The photo26 submitted with the reconsideration request and subsequent photos provided by 

the claimant of the bottom of the vessel show marine growth on the rudder and bottom which 

indicates the antifouling paint was no longer providing effective protection, but does not prove it 

was because of the oil spill.

27 According to Interlux, a bottom paint distributor, an out of water 

inspection is recommended every 24-36 months, to assess repairs and recoat of the bottom as 

needed.

28 The NPFC requested evidence from the claimant of when the bottom of the boat was 

last painted. Claimant asserted that he “had not painted the bottom of the boat and that it had 

fresh bottom paint on it when he purchased it shortly after July 2021”29. However, Claimant did 

not provide any evidence to support the date stated. 

The NPFC finds Claimant has not provided evidence that the oil spill damaged the bottom 

paint of his vessel. Additionally, the Coast Guard Marine Safety Lab supervisor stated that the 

oils spilled in this incident would have remained on the surface of the water, unless dispersants 

were used. NPFC found no record of dispersants used during the cleanup of this spill. Finally, 

Claimant provided 18 pictures during reconsideration of his claim; none of the hull/waterline 

paint appears to be damaged; which is where the oil would have concentrated during the spill. 

Upon reconsideration of this claim, the NPFC offers $1,935.38, which compensates the 

claimant for parts, labor and haul out for cleaning and polishing the sides of the vessel where oil 

was present.

 

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

the reasons outlined above, Claimant’s request for reconsideration of his claim is approved in the 

amount of $1,935.38.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., The Oil Properties Data Appendix – 

A, pages 629 to 634. 24 Photos VH001, VH003 and VH008 provided with the initial claim on April 17, 2023. 25 Email from Supervisor of Analysis to NPFC dated June 29, 2023. 26 One photo submitted with reconsideration request on June 15, 2023 and one photo on June 19, 2023 and 16 

photos emailed from Claimant on July 24, 2023. 27 See Department of Ecology website https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-toxicchemicals/Washingtons-toxics-in-products-laws/Antifouling-boat-paints 28 Antifoulings and the Environment brochure from Interlux website https://www.internationalyachtpaint.com/s3/documents/Guidance/antifoulings and the environment.pdf, page 8 of 8. 29 Email from Mr. to NPFC Re Additional Information dated 

(b) (6)

May 4, 2023.
6

 This determination on reconsideration is a settlement offer,30 the claimant has 60 days in 

which to accept this offer. Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.31 The NPFC reserves 

the right to revoke a settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.32 Moreover, this settlement 

offer is based upon the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential. 

Claim Supervisor: Russell C. Proctor

Date of Supervisor’s review: 1 August 2023 

Supervisor Action: Offer Approved.

30 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).

31 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 32 33 CFR § 136.115(b).