3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPM23040-DRP002 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: Individual 

Type of Claim: Real or Personal Property 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,850.00 

Action Taken: Denial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On September 1, 2023, the National Response Center (NRC) received a report of a mystery 

sheen that discharged into Tampa Bay, Port Manatee, FL, a navigable waterway of the United 

States.2

 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector St. Petersburg responded to the scene 

and determined that 3,500 gallons of heavy fuel oil discharged into the water from an unknown 

source.3 The USCG Sector St. Petersburg, in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC), opened Federal Project Number UCGPM2340 and hired contractors for oil 

removal/decontamination operations.4 No responsible party has been identified for this incident.

 Mr. and his clients were fishing when oil moved into the area where they were in Port 

Manatee, FL.

5

 The oil left an oil residue on all sides of the boat and the shaft of the trolling 

motor.6 Mr. alleged it also got on four fishing reels and line. He provided a photo of an 

oiled scrub brush, for which he also claims damage. Claimant submitted a claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) in the amount of $1,850.00 on September 20, 2023.7

 The NPFC 

requested additional information from the claimant, such as proof of damage to the fishing gear 

and valuations of the damages in accordance with applicable regulations. The claimant has not 

provided the requested information to date. The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable laws and regulations, and after 

careful consideration has determined that the claim must be denied. 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 2 National Response Center (NRC) Report #1377869

3 United States Coast Guard Situation Report (SITREP) Two dated September 10, 2023.

4 USCG SITREP Two dated September 10, 2023.

5 OSLTF Optional Claim Form provided by claimant with initial claim submission dated September 6, 2023.. 6

 Claim submission received September 20, 2023. 7

 Claim submission received September 20, 2023.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)
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.8 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.9 

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.10 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.11 The oil sample results revealed the spilled oil was heavy fuel 

oil and the suspected source samples were non-matches.

12

Recovery Operations

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

opened Federal Project Number UCGPM23040 and hired contractors to contain the discharge 

and to commence oil removal/decontamination operations.13

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

sorbent materials.14 The FOSC oversaw the response and removal actions. USCG conducted 

safety and operation briefings daily.15 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, 2023.16

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

The claimant runs a fishing charter company in the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

17 Since no 

responsible party has been identified for the spill, he submitted his claim directly to the NPFC, 

which was received on September 20, 2023. He seeks alleged damages to his boat, trolling 

8

 USCG SITREP One dated September 6, 2023. 9 USCG SITREP Two dated September 10, 2023.

10 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 11 USCG SITREP Two dated September 10, 2023. 12 United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Laboratory Cases #23-068 & #23-073. 13 Id. 14 USCG SITREP One dated September 6, 2023. 15 USCG SITREP Six dated September 22, 2023. 16 Id. 17 https://www.reelmemoriesfishingcharter.com/ last visited on November 27, 2023
5

motor, fishing gear and a cleaning brush in the amount of $1,850.00. The claimant provided the 

OSLTF Optional Claim form, his vessel registration and some photographs of the allegedly 

damaged property. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).18 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.19 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.20 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. 

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: 

18 33 CFR Part 136. 19 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)). 20 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).
6

(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 damaged property, Mr. provided an active Florida Vessel 

Registration which proved he owned the vessel at the time of the incident21 as well as a 

photograph of his vessel showing the matching registration number.22 

Regarding proof of damage, the claimant provided a photograph of the oil-stained vessel and 

evidence that his vessel was underway during this incident.23 He also provided a photograph of 

the oil-stained trolling motor shaft, and an oil-stained cleaning brush. The NPFC finds that the 

claimant proved that those three items were damaged by the oil discharge. As for the rods, reels 

and line, oil was not discernable in the photographs he provided. Via email on September 26, 

2023, the NPFC requested evidence of such damage, but the claimant has not provided it. Thus, 

the claimant has not proven damage to these items of property. 

Regarding proof of valuation of the losses, the claimant did not provide any documentation. 

He merely claimed $1,850.00 with no itemization of how he arrived at that amount and no 

documentation to support it. Via the September 26, 2023 email to the claimant, the NPFC 

requested evidence of damage valuations as required by the regulations. To date, the claimant 

has not provided any evidence of valuation. 

The NPFC attempted to remind the claimant of the missing documentation on several 

occasions,24 but the claimant has not provided the requested documentation to date. 

21 Florida Vessel Registration # . 22 Email from claimant to NPFC dated September 27, 2023. 23 Photograph provided with initial claim submission. 24 Emails from NFPC to claimant dated September 26, 2023, October 6, 2023, October 12, 2023, November 6, 2023, 

and November 9, 2023. 

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