Oil Pollution Act Liability Limits 

in 2015 

Report to Congress 

October 26, 2015 

U. S. Coast 

Guard 
This page was intentionally left blank 
i 

Foreword 

October 26, 2015 

I am pleased to present the following report, “Oil Pollution Act 

Liability Limits in 2015,” as prepared by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 

No. 109-241) directs the submission of an analysis of the extent to 

which oil discharges from vessels and non-vessel sources have or are 

likely to result in removal costs and damages for which no defense to 

liability exists and that exceed the established liability limits. 

Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided 

to the following Members of Congress: 

The Honorable John Thune 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

The Honorable Bill Nelson 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

I am happy to answer any further questions you may have, or your staff may contact my Senate 

Liaison Office at (202) 224-2913 or House Liaison Office at (202) 225-4775. 

Sincerely, 

Paul F. Zukunft 

Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard 

Commandant
ii 

Oil Pollution Act Liability Limits in 2014 

Table of Contents 

I. Legislative Language 1

II. Background 2

III. Analysis of Discharges 3

IV. Impacts on the Fund 9

V. Findings with Respect to Further Liability Limit Adjustments 12

Attachment A: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits by Vessel Type 17

Attachment B: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits by Incident Date 20

Attachment C: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits with Limits to Achieve 50% Cost Share 25
1

I. Legislative Language 

This report responds to the language set forth in section 603(c) of the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2006, (Pub. L. 109-241), which states: 

 

SEC. 603. LIMITS ON LIABILITY. 

(c) REPORT.— 

(1) Initial Report. – Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating shall submit a report on liability limits described in paragraph (2) to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives. 

(2) Contents. – The report shall include, at a minimum, the following: 

(A) An analysis of the extent to which oil discharges from vessels and 

nonvessel sources have or are likely to result in removal costs and 

damages (as defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

U.S.C. 2701)) for which no defense to liability exists under section 1003 

of such Act and that exceed the liability limits established in section 1004 

of such Act, as amended by this section. 

(B) An analysis of the impacts that claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund for amounts exceeding such liability limits will have 

on the Fund. 

(C) Based on analyses under this paragraph and taking into account 

other factors impacting the Fund, recommendations on whether the 

liability limits need to be adjusted in order to prevent the principal of the 

Fund from declining to levels that are likely to be insufficient to cover 

expected claims. 

 (3) Annual Updates. - The Secretary shall provide an update of the report 

to the Committees referred to in paragraph (1) on an annual basis.1

 

1

 The House of Representatives recently passed the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, H.R. 1987, 114th

Cong. § 502 (b) (2015), which could change the timing of the updated report. The bill amends the reporting 

requirement with the following: 

Section 603(c)(3) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 

2704 note) is amended by striking “on an annual basis” and inserting “not later than January 

30 of the year following each year in which occurs an oil discharge from a vessel or 

nonvessel source that results or is likely to result in removal costs and damages (as those 

terms are defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701)) that 

exceed liability limits established under section 1004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

U.S.C. 2704).”.
2

II. Background 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) was enacted in the wake of the T/V EXXON VALDEZ oil 

spill to promote measures for the prevention of oil spills on navigable waters, the adjoining 

shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone. It provided a more robust Federal response to 

spills, increased the liability of polluters (Responsible Parties (RPs)) for such spills, and provided 

for compensation to those that incur removal costs and damages as a result of these spills. 

The OPA provides that RPs are strictly liable for removal costs and damages resulting from a 

discharge up to statutory liability limits. In general, RPs are liable without limit only if the 

discharge results from gross negligence or willful misconduct or a violation of operation, safety, 

or construction regulations (OPA § 1004 (33 U.S.C. § 2704)). 

In 1986, Congress established within the Treasury of the United States, the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (The Fund),2 However, it was not until after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill that 

under the OPA, Congress transferred monies into the Fund and authorized its use. The National 

Pollution Funds Center was created and delegated authority by the Commandant, via redelegations of authority vested in the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard was 

operating at the time, to manage the Fund. The Fund plays a critical role in the OPA regime. It 

pays Federal costs for oil removal when a discharge occurs and reimburses third-party claims for 

uncompensated removal costs and damages when a responsible party does not pay or is not 

identified. The types of damages compensable under the OPA include damages to natural 

resources, loss of subsistence use of natural resources, damages to real or personal property, loss 

of profits or earning capacity, loss of government revenues, and increased cost of public services. 

In addition, the Fund is an important source of annual appropriations to various Federal agencies 

responsible for administering and enforcing a wide range of oil pollution prevention and 

response programs addressed in the OPA (OPA § 1012 (33 U.S.C. § 2712)). 

Specific to this report, the Fund is available, as provided by the OPA, to pay claims for removal 

costs and damages resulting from an oil discharge that exceeds the responsible party’s liability 

limits. This includes payment of claims from RPs who pay or incur removal costs or damages in 

excess of their liability limits and can establish their entitlement to the limits under the 

circumstances of the discharge (OPA § 1008 (33 U.S.C. § 2708)). 

Claims to the Fund are payable only from the Fund, and payments are limited by the available 

balance. For any single discharge incident, the Fund is authorized to pay no more than $1 billion, 

of which no more than $500 million may be paid for natural resource damages (OPA § 9001(c) 

(26 U.S. Code § 9509)). 

Pursuant to section 603 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, liability 

limits for vessel discharges were substantially increased. In that same section, Congress 

requested this analysis and report. 

 

 

2

 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509) 
3

III. Analysis of Discharges 

This section provides an analysis of the extent to which oil discharges from non-vessel and 

vessel sources have resulted or are likely to result in removal costs and damages, as defined in 

the OPA, that exceed liability limits established in the OPA, as amended by the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241). 

A. Non-vessel Sources 

When the liability caps under the OPA apply, RPs for an offshore facility will be liable for all 

removal costs plus up to $133.65 million for damages. This limit of liability was adjusted by the 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, on December 14, 2014, to 

reflect inflation occurring since 1990.3 The incident involving the DEEPWATER HORIZON

drilling rig and its Macondo well, (DEEPWATER HORIZON incident) is the only incident to 

have resulted in costs and/or damages known to exceed the statutory liability limit for an 

offshore facility.4

 In response to this incident, on May 12, 2010, the Administration proposed 

raising the limitation of liability for all RPs, including those responsible for offshore facilities. 

The full extent of the damages from the DEEPWATER HORIZON incident cannot be predicted 

with any degree of certainty at this time. While BP has reportedly paid billions to settle damages 

and other claims, other damages, including Federal, State and Indian Tribe trustee natural 

resource damages, remain to be determined and paid.5

 As the background data for all offshore 

incidents since the enactment of the OPA show, DEEPWATER HORIZON incident constitutes a 

single data point for determining what amended liability for damages is needed. 

With respect to offshore facility incidents (other than the incident involving the DEEPWATER 

HORIZON), the best available data indicates there have been 53 incidents since the enactment of 

the OPA that have resulted in removal costs and damages (6 Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and 

47 Offshore Platforms). Figure 1 shows the frequency of these incidents by year and facility 

type. 

 

 

3

 See 79 FR 73832. The OPA (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)) requires that the OPA limits of liability be adjusted “not less 

than every 3 years . . . to reflect significant increases in the Consumer Price Index.” 4

 Note: Data provided by the RP for the Taylor Energy oil platform spill indicate that over $800 million for removal 

costs have been spent to date. The Coast Guard has not yet verified whether any of these costs were proper removal 

costs under the OPA. However, there is no limit of liability under OPA for removal costs when responding to discharges 

or threats of discharge from offshore facilities. Therefore, addressing the adequacy of OPA’s limit of liability for this 

case is not relevant at this time (i.e., unless their damages approach the $133.65 million amount). This incident is 

mentioned in this report because it is a high visibility spill and its omission in this report might create confusion. 5

 On October 5, 2015, it was announced that all parties have entered into a consent decree to settle civil claims for 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill including natural resource damages. 
4

Figure 1: Number of Offshore Facility Incidents by Year and Facility Type 

(Excludes 2010 Deepwater Horizon and Taylor Energy Oil Spills)

Figure 2 shows the total incident cost for each of these incidents. As depicted, the highest cost 

incident, at approximately $18.2 million (in 2015 dollars), does not meet the statutory limit of 

liability of all removal costs (plus $133.65 million for damages). 

Figure 2: Total Incident Cost of Offshore Facility 

Incidents by Facility Type (2015 Dollars / Excludes 2010 Deepwater Horizon and Taylor Energy Oil Spills) 

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Drilling Rig Offshore Platform

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

Drilling Rig Offshore Platform
5

For incidents involving discharges from onshore facilities, the OPA limit liability of $350 

million per incident.6

 The 2010 Enbridge Energy Partners Lakehead Line 6B pipeline oil spill in 

Michigan is the sole onshore facility incident that has reportedly resulted in removal costs and 

damages that exceed the onshore facility liability limit. 

As of May 2015, Enbridge Energy Partners reported costs of more than $1.1 billion resulting 

from its pipeline spill. The full extent of the removal costs and damages from the Enbridge 

Energy Partners Lakehead Line 6B pipeline incident cannot be predicted with any degree of 

certainty at this time. As the background data for all onshore facility incidents since the 

enactment of the OPA show, the Enbridge Energy Partners Lakehead Line 6B discharge 

constitutes a single data point for determining an amended liability limit for discharges from 

onshore facilities. There have been no other onshore facility incidents that approach the $350 

million limit under existing law. 

With respect to onshore facility incidents (other than the incident involving the Enbridge 

pipeline), best available data indicate there have been 4,573 incidents since the enactment of the 

OPA. Figure 3 shows the frequency of these incidents by year. 

Figure 3: Number of Onshore Facility Incidents by Year 

(Excludes 2010 Enbridge Pipeline Oil Spill)

Figure 4 shows the total incident cost of the five most expensive onshore facility incidents per 

year. As depicted, the highest cost incident, at approximately $40.0 million (in 2015 dollars), 

does not meet the statutory $350 million limit of liability. 

 

6

 33 U.S.C. § 2704 (a)(4). The onshore facility limit of liability is subject to adjustment by regulatory action to 

reflect significant increases in the Consumer Price Index under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4), and may also be adjusted for 

risk under 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(1). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500
6

Figure 4: Total Incident Cost of the Five Most Expensive Onshore Facility Incidents per Year (2015 Dollars / 

Excludes 2010 Enbridge Pipeline Oil Spill) 

B. Vessel Sources 

After being adjusted for inflation, the OPA provides the following liability limits for vessels:7

(1) For a single-hull tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, the greater of $3,200 per gross 

ton or $23,496,000. 

(2) For a tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, other than a single-hull tank vessel, the 

greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17,088,000. 

(3) For a single-hull vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons, the greater of $3,200 per 

gross ton or $6,408,000. 

(4) For a tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons, other than a single-hull tank 

vessel, the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $4,272,000. 

(5) For any other vessel, the greater of $1,000 per gross ton or $854,400. 

The best available data indicates 68 oil discharges from vessels have resulted in removal costs 

and damages that exceed the amended liability limits. The data have been updated to incorporate 

new incidents, and reflect revised estimates of costs and damages associated with previously 

reported incidents.8 ,9 Discharge incidents are listed by vessel type in Attachment A and by 

incident date in Attachment B. 

 

7

 33 C.F.R. § 138.230. 

8

 References throughout this report to data for the year 2015 are partial year data ending on May 1, 2015. 9

 We note that, under 46 U.S.C. § 3703a it is illegal to operate “single hull” tank vessels in U.S. Waters as of 

January 1, 2015. The OPA, however, still specifies limits of liability for these vessels. We therefore, continue to 

discuss the single hull tank vessel limits of liability in this report. 

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000
7

Figure 5 depicts the number of such discharges per year. The elevated total for 1999 is the result 

of a typhoon in American Samoa, which resulted in oil discharges involving eight fishing vessel 

wrecks. The figure illustrates the variance in numbers of incidents from year to year. 

 

Figure 5: Number of Incidents Exceeding Limits of Liability 

Figure 6 shows a breakdown of these 68 incidents by vessel type. Fishing vessels account for 

38.2 percent of the historical incidents that result in damages in excess of the liability limits, 

while cargo and other self-propelled non-tank vessels represent 44.1 percent of the incidents. 

Single hull and double hull tank barges represent 10.3 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively. 

Single hull tank ships account for only 3.0 percent of such discharges. There are no double hull 

tank ship incidents among the 68 incidents. 

Figure 6: Number of Incidents Exceeding Limits of Liability by Vessel Type 

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of Incidents 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Single Hull Tank 

Ship

Double Hull Tank 

Ship

Single Hull Tank 

Barge

Double Hull Tank 

Barge

Cargo/Other SelfPropelled VesselFishing Vessel

Number of Incidents
8

Figure 7, total removal costs and damages from these incidents by vessel type, portrays a similar 

picture. Total costs in excess of liability limits for cargo/other self-propelled vessel discharges 

have been the highest. Total costs for single hull tank ship and tank barge discharges that exceed 

liability limits have also been significant. Per discharge costs from single hull tank ship 

incidents are the highest (approximately $200.3 million) in light of the quantities of oil these 

vessels carry. Per discharge costs for all tank barges are also substantial (approximately $76.5 

million). Larger cargo vessels also carry enough fuel to result in costly discharges 

(approximately $23.6 million per incident). The small size and limited quantities of oil 

characteristic of most fishing vessel incidents accounts generally for the lower total costs of such 

discharges (approximately $2.5 million), shown here and in more detail in Attachment A. 

Total removal costs and damages for these discharges since enactment of the OPA is 

approximately $1.9 billion. 

Figure 7: Total Incident Costs by Vessel Type 

 

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

Single Hull 

Tank Ship

Double Hull 

Tank Ship

Single Hull 

Tank Barge

Double Hull 

Tank Barge

Cargo/ Other 

Self-Propelled 

Vessel

Fishing Vessel
9

IV Impacts on the Fund 

This section provides an analysis of the impacts on the Fund resulting from claims against the 

Fund for vessel incidents in which costs and damages exceed liability limits.10 

A. Historical Impact 

As indicated in Figure 8, the Fund’s financial obligation in cases where removal costs and 

damages exceed liability limits (listed in Attachment A) is substantial despite liability limit 

amendments. The top portion of the bar for each vessel type represents the Fund’s share of the 

risk (in excess of applicable liability limit). The bottom portion of the bar for each vessel type 

represents RP risk (RP liability limit based on gross tonnage or minimum limit as applicable for 

each discharge). 

Figure 8: RP vs. Fund Share of Total Incident Costs under Current Limits by Vessel Type 

Of the approximately $1.9 billion in estimated removal costs and damages from these incidents 

over the last 24 years, the Fund’s share of cost totals approximately $1.3 billion (68%). This 

amount represents a maximum potential impact on Fund risk resulting solely from the 

application of the liability limit levels. While the rate of such incidents is difficult to predict and 

may vary widely from year-to-year (as indicated by Figure 5), the risk to the Fund can be 

expressed broadly as an annual cost of approximately $55.0 million (total costs of $1.3 billion 

over 24 years) in excess of amended limits in 2015 dollars. 

 

10 As discussed above, historically, with the exception of the DEEPWATER HORIZON and ENBRIDGE data points, 

only vessel incidents had total incident costs that exceeded limits of liability. Therefore, facilities are not included 

in the discussion of RP and Fund risk cost sharing. 

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

Single Hull 

Tank Ship

Double Hull 

Tank Ship

Single Hull 

Tank Barge

Double Hull 

Tank Barge

Cargo/ Other 

Self-Propelled 

Vessel

Fishing Vessel

Fund Share

RP Share

45%

55%

25%

75%

37%

63%

61%

39%

90%

10%
10

B. Impact from Claims 

Over the past 24 years, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) has paid $872 million to 

claimants in connection with the OPA incidents. Of this total, $426 million (or 48.9 percent) 

was paid in respect to circumstances where removal costs and damages exceeded the applicable 

liability limit amount (Figure 9). These "limit of liability" payments include payments made 

directly to the RPs for the removal costs and damages they paid or incurred in excess of liability 

limits, as well as third-party claims paid by the Fund because the RP had spent up to its limit of 

liability. 

Figure 10 shows that of the $245 million in claims under adjudication as of May 1, 2015, $129 

million (or 52.7 percent of the total dollars) are pending claims by RPs who have incurred 

incident costs exceeding their liability limits or claims by third parties where incident costs 

exceeded the liability limits. 

 Figure 9: Total Claims Paid Figure 10: Total Pending Claims 

C. Recent Trends 

The potential impact to the Fund resulting from payments to RPs, third parties for claims, and 

response costs where vessel incident costs exceeded the RPs’ limits of liability varies 

substantially from year to year, but has averaged approximately $55.0 million per year over the 

past 24 years. While the potential impact is significant, it is also useful to note the available data 

show a continued trend toward more Fund risk in recent years. 

As illustrated in Figure 11 and Attachment B, the Fund share of the risk for discharges that result 

in estimated removal costs and claims that exceed liability limits has increased over time, to 91% 

of costs in the most recent period after 2010. This increased risk is largely the result of the 

greater cost of such incidents in recent years. 

Limit of 

Liability 

Claims

$129 M

All Other 

Claims

$6 M

Deepwater 

Horizon 

Claims 

$110 M

Limit of 

Liability 

Payments 

$426 M

All Other 

Claims 

Payments

$109 M

Deepwater 

Horizon 

NRD 

Payments 

$337 M
11

Figure 11: RP vs. Fund Share of Total Incident Costs 

The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-343) extended the barrel 

tax through December 31, 2017, and increased the tax from five cents to eight cents for 2009-

2016, and to nine cents for 2017. Tax revenues are deposited into the Fund, which should 

provide additional income to the Fund over the next several years. Based on current revenue and 

expenditure projections, the NPFC forecasts that the Fund should maintain liquidity through 

2021 (See Figure 12). 

However, as noted earlier, until the consent decree is effective, the impact on the Fund from the 

DEEPWATER HORIZON catastrophe remains uncertain. If the Fund were to bear substantial 

removal costs and damages from the catastrophe without recovery, additional revenue may be 

needed to continue to carry out Fund-financed programs. 

Changing energy trends may also impact costs to the fund. Though the Enbridge Energy 

Partners Lakehead Line 6B pipeline incident is an outlier within the historic data set, the oil 

spilled, diluted bitumen, is known to sink in water, raising response costs. Similarly, challenges 

of responding to an Arctic oil spill, from either a vessel or non-vessel source, are also likely to 

incur higher costs to the fund. Cost associated with preparedness, response mobilization, natural 

resource assessment and recovery will be higher in extreme cold climes.. 

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2014

Fund 

Share

RP Share

37%

63%

32%

68%

91%

9%
12

V. Findings with Respect to Further Liability Limit 

Adjustments 

This section discusses findings, based on historical trends and analyses, and taking into account 

other factors impacting the Fund, on whether the liability limits need to be adjusted in order to 

prevent the principal of the Fund from declining to levels that are likely to be insufficient to 

cover expected claims. 

A. Future Year Fund Outlook 

The NPFC anticipates the Fund will be able to cover its projected non-catastrophic liabilities, 

including claims, without further increases to liability limits except if DEEPWATER HORIZON 

impacts develop. However, increases to liability limits for certain vessel types would result in a 

more equitable division of risk between the Fund and RPs and have a positive impact on the 

balance of the Fund. 

Figure 12 projects the end of year balance of the Fund through 2021 based on estimated revenues 

and expenditures (no adjustment for inflation or potential DEEPWATER HORIZON impacts): 

Figure 12: Fund Forecast Balance (Millions of Dollars) 

Notably, several classes of Fund expenditures are independent of revisions to the limits of 

liability, such as Federal removal costs and annual appropriations. The Fund provides resources 

to the Federal government to respond to oil discharges (Federal removal costs) and to 

compensate claimants for their removal costs and damages when a RP cannot be identified, does 

not respond, or does not compensate claimants. See OPA § 1012(a)(1), (4) (33 U.S.C § 

2712(a)(1), (4)). The Fund also pays when recourse against RPs is not available, such as when a 

RP declares bankruptcy or cannot be identified. Thus, the Fund is the ultimate insurer with 

respect to oil removal costs and damages when there is a discharge or substantial threat of 

discharge to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. 

$-

$1,000 

$2,000 

$3,000 

$4,000 

$5,000 

$6,000 

$7,000 

$8,000 

$9,000 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
13

Fund revenues are generally independent of revisions to the limits of liability. The primary 

source of revenue is an excise tax on oil. Revenue also includes interest earned on Treasury 

Securities held by the Fund, successful cost recoveries, with fines and penalties being the final 

revenue source. The Fund Forecast follows OMB guidance and uses the Treasury’s Office of 

Tax Analysis excise tax projections and the semi-annual Economic Assumptions for Trust Fund 

interest rates. Cost recovery and fines/penalty revenue follow historical data patterns and are 

much less predictable over time. 

The Fund also pays various agencies responsible for administering and enforcing the OPA and 

provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. See OPA § 1012(a)(5) (33 U.S.C. § 

2712(a)(5)). Administrative and enforcement costs that are not allocable to a specific oil 

discharge are not recoverable from liable RPs. 

Figure 13 shows total Fund expenses in recent years for agency appropriations, Federal removal 

costs, and claims for removal costs and damages, of which claims resulting from incident-related 

costs exceeding the limits of liability is a subset. 

Figure 13: Total Fund Expenditures (Thousands of Dollars) 

Figure 13 illustrates that, with the exception of the DEEPWATER HORIZON oil spill costs in 

2010 through 2014, the Federal removal costs and claims payments for which RPs may be liable 

have represented only a portion of the annual expenditures from the Fund. This graph displays 

all costs for vessel or facility discharges. 

The DEEPWATER HORIZON experience has demonstrated that the $133.65 million limit on 

damages for a catastrophic offshore facility incident could be inadequate and the Administration 

has proposed raising that limit on damages. With the exception of DEEPWATER HORIZON, 

roughly half of the removal costs in Figure 13 are for onshore and offshore facility discharges. 

Historical data indicates that the $350 million liability limit for onshore facilities is adequate for 

non-catastrophic spills.11 

 

11 A notice of proposed rulemaking to adjust the limits of liability for vessels, deepwater ports and onshore facilities 

to reflect significant increases in the consumer price index, as required by OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)), was 

published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 (see 79 FR 49206). 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Claims

Deepwater Horizon 

Removal Costs and 

Claims

Removal

Appropriations
14

With respect to the Fund expenses for removal costs and claims allocable to vessel spills, the 

Fund frequently pays when an RP is unknown. In these cases, liability limits have no impact on 

Fund risk. Vessel and facility liability limits will affect the Fund only to the extent RPs are 

available and have the ability to pay. 

B. Further Liability Limit Adjustments 

Adjustments to liability limits help more equitably divide liabilities between the Fund and RPs. 

The OPA is founded on the “polluter pays” principle. At the same time, the OPA also places 

limits on the polluter’s liability to pay for clean-up of spills except in certain circumstances, and 

the Fund is the ultimate insurer for removal costs and damages. As previously noted, on May 12, 

2010, the Administration proposed raising the limitation on liability for all RPs, including RPs 

for activities other than offshore drilling activities (such as shipping). 

Analysis indicates establishing different liability limits for non-tank vessels, which include 

fishing, cargo, and other self-propelled vessels, by tonnage (i.e., greater than 300 gross tons and 

less than or equal to 300 gross tons) would provide more equitable limits on smaller vessels. 

Figure 8 demonstrates that for vessel discharges where removal costs and damages exceed 

current liability limits, the Fund bears a majority of the cost even if every RP is available and 

pays to its limit. Figure 14 illustrates how further adjustments to limits of liability per gross ton 

might achieve an equal sharing of that risk between RPs and the Fund. The bottom portion of 

the bar represents the RP risk at the current limits of liability based on gross tonnage or 

minimum limits as applicable for each discharge. The middle portion represents the additional 

cost the RP would pay if the additional limits were applied, which would leave the Fund 

covering 50 percent of the total incident costs (the top portion of each bar). 

Figure 14: Gross Tonnage Limits of Liability for 50 percent Cost Share 

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

Single Hull Tank Ship Double Hull Tank ShipSingle Hull Tank Barge Double Hull Tank 

Barge

Non-Tank Vessel 

> 300 gross tons

Non-Tank Vessel 

< or = 300 gross tons

Fund Share after 50% Cost Share

Increased RP Share if 50% of 

Incident Cost

Adjusted RP Share at Current Limits

Limit: 

$3,600/gt

Adjusted 

Limit:

$7,700/gt

Adjusted 

Limit:

$1,400/gt

Adjusted 

Limit:

$5,500/gt

Adjusted 

Limit:

$11,800/gt
15

For example, to split the estimated clean-up costs evenly between the Fund and the vessel 

operators, liability limits for single hull tank ships would increase to $3,600 per gross ton, single 

hull tank barges to $7,700 per gross ton, double hull tank barges to $11,800 per gross ton, nontank vessels greater than 300 gross tons to $1,400 per gross ton, and non-tank vessels less than or 

equal to 300 gross tons to $5,500 per gross ton. 

Figure 15 indicates the minimum amount a RP would be expected to pay for an incident (based 

on average historical costs of incidents by vessel type in 2015 dollars), if the limits of liability 

were adjusted so that costs were shared evenly between the RP and the Fund. 

Figure 15: Minimum Liability Limits for 50 percent Cost Share 

Figure 16 summarizes the 50 percent cost share limits and minimums and compares them to the 

current limits. Attachment C illustrates how these limits would protect the Fund from paying the 

majority of the total incident cost when applied to the 68 incidents discussed earlier. The current 

limits distinguish between single hull tank vessels, double hull tank vessels and non-tank (other) 

vessels. As discussed in Section II, however, analysis has shown these categories might best be 

subdivided as follows: categories of Tank Ship and Tank Barge are addressed separately as 

subsets of single and double hull Tank Vessel, and the Non-Tank Vessel category is divided 

between vessels greater than 300 gross tons and vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons.12

 

12 The comparative results for single and double hull tank barges may appear incongruous at first glance. While 

double hull vessels may be safer, and be less likely to spill oil, the data shows that a catastrophic discharge from a 

double hull tank barge can be just as expensive as one from a single hull tank barge. 

$0

$25,000,000

$50,000,000

$75,000,000

$100,000,000

$125,000,000

$150,000,000

$175,000,000

$200,000,000

$225,000,000

$250,000,000

$275,000,000

Single Hull Tank 

Ship

Double Hull Tank 

Ship

Single Hull Tank 

Barge

Double Hull Tank 

Barge

Non-Tank Vessel 

> 300 gross tons

Non-Tank Vessel 

< or = 300 gross tons

Fund Share after 50% Cost Share 

(Average/Vessel)

Increased RP Share if 50% 

(Average/Vessel)

RP Share at Current Limits 

(Average/Vessel))

Minimum

Limit:

$100.2 M

Minimum

Limit:

$34.1 M 

Minimum

Limit:

$1.0 M

Minimum

Limit:

$19.3 M

Minimum

Limit:

$48.0 M
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

16 

Figure 16: Limits of Liability under the OPA 

If the vessel is a. . . The current limits of liability are the ‘greater of:’ But to achieve an 

of liability would 

Tank Ship 

With a single hull, double sides only, or double bottom only 

Greater than 3,000 gross tons: $3,200 per gross ton or $23,496,000 Less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons: $3,200 per gross ton or $6,408,000 

$3,600 per gross t

With a double hull 

Greater than 3,000 gross tons: $2,000 per gross ton or $17,088,000 Less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons: $2,000 per gross ton or $4,272,000 

No data 

Tank Barge With a single hull, double sides only, or double bottom only 

Greater than 3,000 gross tons: $3,200 per gross ton or $23,496,000 Less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons: $3,200 per gross ton or $6,408,000 

$7,700 per gross t

With a double hull 

Greater than 3,000 gross tons: $2,000 per gross ton or $17,088,000 Less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons: $2,000 per gross ton or $4,272,000 

$11,800 per gross 

Non-Tank Vessel Greater than 300 gross tons $1,000 per gross ton or $854,400. $1,400 per gross t

Less than or equal to 300 gross tons $1,000 per gross ton or $854,400. $5,500 per gross t
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

17 

Attachment A: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits by Vessel Type 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

18 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

19 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

20 

Attachment B: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits by Incident Date 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

21 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

22 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

23 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

24 
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

25 

Attachment C: Incidents Exceeding Liability Limits with Limits to Achieve 

Vessel Type: Tank Ship (Single Hull)

Lifo

T/V JULIE N 1996 ME 18,500 $52,601,200 1.51 $79,428,000 $59,126,000 $20,301,000 $28,376,000 T/V ATHOS I 2004 NJ 37,900 $256,987,600 1.25 $321,235,000 $121,264,000 $199,971,000 $210,281,000 TOTAL $400,663,000 $180,390,000 $220,272,000 $238,657,000

Actual OSLTF 

Costs Incurred

Sh

Project Name Incident Year Incident Location Gross Tonnage Total Incident Cost Inflation Factor Total Incident Cost (2015 Dollars) Limits of Liability Fund Exposure

Vessel Type: Tank Barge (Single Hull)T/B VISTABELLA 1991 PR 1,100 $6,075,200 1.74 $10,571,000 $6,408,000 $4,163,000 $4,782,000 T/B (TAMPA BAY 1993 FL 9,300 $68,900,000 1.64 $112,996,000 $29,638,000 $83,358,000 $2,397,000 T/B MORRIS J. BERMAN 1994 PR 5,400 $95,488,300 1.60 $152,781,000 $23,496,000 $129,285,000 $95,488,000 M/V SCANDIA & T/B 1996 RI 5,500 $49,000,000 1.51 $73,990,000 $23,496,000 $50,494,000 $9,046,000 T/B BUFFALO #292 1996 TX 1,500 $21,496,100 1.51 $32,459,000 $6,408,000 $26,051,000 $16,810,000 T/B B NO. 120 2003 MA 6,900 $61,073,100 1.29 $78,784,000 $23,496,000 $55,288,000 $1,753,000 T/B EMC 423 2005 IL 1,400 $12,778,500 1.21 $15,462,000 $6,408,000 $9,054,000 $5,839,000 TOTAL $477,043,000 $119,350,000 $357,693,000 $136,115,000Vessel Type: Tank Barge (Double Hull)T/B DBL 152 2005 LA 9,700 $55,358,700 1.21 $66,984,000 $19,482,000 $47,502,000 $19,756,000 $T/B DM932 2008 LA 800 $104,465,300 1.10 $114,912,000 $4,272,000 $110,640,000 $23,406,000 KIRBY 27706 2014 TX 1,600 $106,002,900 1.00 $106,003,000 $4,272,000 $101,731,000 $1,268,000 TOTAL $287,899,000 $28,026,000 $259,873,000 $44,430,000
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

26 

G

Liafor 

Actual OSLTF 

Costs Incurred

Shad

Project Name Incident Year Incident Location Gross Tonnage Total Incident Cost Inflation Factor Total Incident Cost (2015 Dollars) Limits of Liability Fund Exposure

Vessel Type: Non-Tank Vessel > 300 GTF/V TENYO MARU 1991 WA 4,200 $6,062,900 1.74 $10,549,000 $4,167,000 $6,382,000 $6,063,000 $5F/V JIN SHIANG FA 1993 AS 400 $2,013,000 1.64 $3,301,000 $854,000 $2,447,000 $2,420,000 $M/V KUROSHIMA 1997 AK 4,200 $19,702,600 1.47 $28,963,000 $4,160,000 $24,803,000 $17,540,000 $5M/V KURE 1997 CA 36,000 $47,218,900 1.47 $69,412,000 $36,009,000 $33,403,000 $711,000 $5M/V STUYVESANT 1999 CA 7,100 $11,700,000 1.42 $16,614,000 $7,111,000 $9,503,000 $379,000 $9M/V NEW CARISSA 1999 OR 36,600 $51,301,400 1.42 $72,848,000 $36,571,000 $36,277,000 $32,914,000 $5M/V SERGO ZAKARIADZE 1999 PR 16,500 $15,966,700 1.42 $22,673,000 $16,502,000 $6,171,000 $6,065,000 $2SS J LUCKENBACH 2001 CA 7,900 $42,007,700 1.34 $56,290,000 $7,869,000 $48,421,000 $44,051,000 $1F/V WINDY BAY 2001 AK 400 $3,396,400 1.34 $4,551,000 $854,000 $3,697,000 $3,396,000 $M/V SELENDANG AYU 2004 AK 39,800 $152,927,300 1.25 $191,159,000 $39,755,000 $151,404,000 $98,265,000 $5MAMA LERE 2006 TX 400 $1,217,300 1.17 $1,424,000 $854,000 $570,000 $1,217,000 $M/V COSCO BUSAN 2007 CA 65,100 $110,557,900 1.14 $126,036,000 $65,131,000 $60,905,000 $4,208,000 $9LST-1166 2007 OR 2,400 $5,151,000 1.14 $5,872,000 $2,418,000 $3,454,000 $5,151,000 $CATALA 2007 WA 5,700 $6,138,500 1.14 $6,998,000 $5,700,000 $1,298,000 $6,138,000 $7C/V SEA WITCH 2008 MD 17,900 $20,629,900 1.10 $22,693,000 $17,902,000 $4,791,000 $20,630,000 $2M/V PRINCESS KATHLEEN 2010 AK 5,900 $14,185,900 1.09 $15,463,000 $5,875,000 $9,588,000 $14,186,000 $DAVY CROCKETT 2011 WA 4,600 $22,457,500 1.05 $23,580,000 $4,643,000 $18,937,000 $22,458,000 $JIREH 2012 PR 1,000 $16,564,300 1.03 $17,061,000 $979,000 $16,082,000 $16,467,000 $TOTAL $695,487,000 $257,354,000 $438,133,000 $302,259,000
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

27 

Liafor 

Actual OSLTF 

Costs Incurred

Sha

Project Name Incident Year Incident Location Gross Tonnage Total Incident Cost Inflation Factor Total Incident Cost (2015 Dollars) Limits of Liability Fund Exposure

Vessel Type: Non-Tank Vessel < or + 300 GTF/V YU TE NO. 1 1999 AS 200 $1,164,600 1.42 $1,654,000 $854,000 $799,000 $5,296,000 $F/V AMIGA NO. 5 1999 AS 200 $3,355,700 1.42 $4,765,000 $854,000 $3,911,000 $2,766,000 $F/V KWANG MYONG 1999 AS 200 $1,554,800 1.42 $2,208,000 $854,000 $1,353,000 $965,000 $F/V KORAM NO. 3 1999 AS 200 $1,403,100 1.42 $1,992,000 $854,000 $1,138,000 $813,000 $F/V KWANG MYONG NO 72 1999 AS 200 $2,182,900 1.42 $3,100,000 $854,000 $2,245,000 $1,593,000 $F/V KWANG MYONG NO 58 1999 AS 200 $1,557,600 1.42 $2,212,000 $854,000 $1,357,000 $967,000 $F/V KORAM NO 1 1999 AS 200 $1,378,400 1.42 $1,957,000 $854,000 $1,103,000 $788,000 $F/V KWANG MYONG NO 51 1999 AS 200 $1,249,200 1.42 $1,774,000 $854,000 $919,000 $659,000 $F/V JESSICA ANN 2000 ME 200 $947,000 1.37 $1,297,000 $854,000 $443,000 $947,000 $F/V SWORDMAN I 2000 HI 100 $1,528,600 1.37 $2,094,000 $854,000 $1,240,000 $1,529,000 $F/V VANGUARD 2001 AK 200 $699,800 1.34 $938,000 $854,000 $83,000 $700,000 $M/V KIMTON 2001 PR 200 $713,700 1.34 $956,000 $854,000 $102,000 $714,000 $F/V GENEI MARU #7 2002 AK 100 $869,800 1.32 $1,148,000 $854,000 $294,000 $870,000 $F/V TERESA LYNN 2002 FL 200 $690,800 1.32 $912,000 $854,000 $57,000 $691,000 $VICTORIA ROSE HUNT 2003 MA 100 $1,085,700 1.29 $1,401,000 $854,000 $546,000 $94,000 $M/V RED DIAMOND 2003 FL 200 $2,595,200 1.29 $3,348,000 $854,000 $2,493,000 $2,595,000 $CRANE BARGE MONARCH 2003 CA 200 $2,481,700 1.29 $3,201,000 $854,000 $2,347,000 $2,482,000 $M/V BOWSTRING 2003 FL 300 $1,606,500 1.29 $2,072,000 $854,000 $1,218,000 $1,606,000 $F/V NEW HORIZON 2004 CA 100 $805,300 1.25 $1,007,000 $854,000 $152,000 $305,000 $F/V MWALIL SAAT 2004 GU 200 $3,413,500 1.25 $4,267,000 $854,000 $3,412,000 $3,414,000 $
This listing includes all incidents regardless of vessel size or type and regardless of whether a claim to the Fund by a responsible party for amounts in excess of liability limit

Costs include Federal removal costs and claims paid that have been verified. Other costs are estimated from best available information but cannot otherwise be verified. Fu

and do not imply that the responsible parties will be able to limit their liability under the statute where the issue has not yet been determined. 

28 

G

Liabfor a 

Actual OSLTF 

Costs Incurred

Shad

Project Name Incident Year Incident Location Gross Tonnage Total Incident Cost Inflation Factor Total Incident Cost (2015 Dollars) Limits of Liability Fund Exposure

F/V THE BOSS 2004 OR 200 $926,100 1.25 $1,158,000 $854,000 $303,000 $926,000 $M/V ORIENTAL I 2004 FL 200 $727,400 1.25 $909,000 $854,000 $55,000 $727,000 $F/V MILKY WAY 2005 WA 200 $1,039,600 1.21 $1,258,000 $854,000 $403,000 $539,000 $ALBION 2005 CA 200 $1,207,100 1.21 $1,461,000 $854,000 $606,000 $1,207,000 $M/V CASITAS 2005 HI 300 $1,710,700 1.21 $2,070,000 $854,000 $1,216,000 $1,711,000 $M/V SENECA 2007 MI 200 $1,211,000 1.14 $1,381,000 $854,000 $526,000 $1,211,000 $NORTHERN MARINER 2008 AK 200 $785,100 1.10 $864,000 $854,000 $9,000 $785,000 $BIG BOY & SCOOBY DOO 2008 PA 200 $1,010,800 1.10 $1,112,000 $854,000 $258,000 $1,011,000 $CAPT MIKE 2009 LA 100 $2,413,400 1.10 $2,655,000 $854,000 $1,800,000 $2,413,000 F/V MAR-GUN 2009 AK 200 $1,388,100 1.10 $1,527,000 $854,000 $672,000 $199,000 $WENONAH 2009 CA 300 $947,800 1.10 $1,043,000 $854,000 $188,000 $948,000 $SOUND DEVELOPER 2009 AK 200 $1,657,100 1.10 $1,823,000 $854,000 $968,000 $1,657,000 $MONARCH 2009 AK 300 $2,698,200 1.10 $2,968,000 $854,000 $2,114,000 $24,000 $TUG TIGER 2011 CA 200 $4,205,500 1.05 $4,416,000 $854,000 $3,561,000 $4,205,000 $DEEP SEA 2012 WA 200 $3,384,300 1.03 $3,486,000 $854,000 $2,631,000 $2,795,000 $F/V LONE STAR 2013 AK 100 $2,663,600 1.02 $2,717,000 $854,000 $1,863,000 $1,126,000 RESPECT 2013 CA 200 $2,365,600 1.02 $2,413,000 $854,000 $1,559,000 $2,366,000 $DAIKI MARU 7 2014 GU 100 $1,550,000 1.00 $1,550,000 $854,000 $696,000 $63,000 TOTAL $77,114,000 $32,452,000 $44,640,000 $53,707,000GRAND TOTAL $1,938,203,000 $617,589,000 $1,320,614,000 $775,169,000