2

CLAIM DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 919025-0001 

Claimant: Atlantic Coast Marine Group

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $27,738.49 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $26,304.77

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On May 25, 2018, a 43’ Viking Sportfish vessel, THUNDERFISH, caught fire and discharged oil into 

the intracoastal waterway of Adams Creek, North Carolina, a navigable waterway of the US.

1

 

 (“RP”), is the owner and operator of the vessel and is the responsible party (RP) as defined by 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.2

 Atlantic Coast Marine Group (“ACMG” or “claimant”), commenced 

cleanup operations on the water after being hired by the RP.3

 In June 2018 and October 2018, ACMG 

presented its uncompensated removal costs to the RP.4

 Having not received payment from the RP after 

ninety days,5

 ACMG presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $27,738.49 on June 12, 2019.6

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has 

determined that $26,304.77 of the requested $27,738.49 is compensable and offers this amount as full and 

final compensation of this claim.7

 

 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On May 25, 2018, the vessel, THUNDERFISH, caught fire and sank discharging oil into the 

waterway. Aprroximately 40 gallons of product was recovered along with contaminated water.8

 Marine 

Safety Detachment (MSD) Fort Macon was notified by Sector North Carolina about the incident. 

Beaufort Fire department, Towboat US/ACMG salvage company responded and was able to extinguish 

the fire and tow the vessel out of the channel to the western descending bank of Adams Creek.9

 

Responsible Party 

is the owner of the vessel THUNDERFISH and was designated the responsible party 

(RP) for the oil spill incident.10 

The NPFC issued a Responsible Party (RP) Notification letter dated June 18, 2019 to Mr. to 

the last known address obtained from the USCG Notice of Federal Interest dated May 25, 2018 and 

 

1 OSLTF Claim submission letter dated August 3, 2019.

2 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

3 June 21, 2019 email from MST1 to the NPFC.

4 Invoice # 2018-H525 dated October 9, 2018 and Invoice # 2018-H525 dated June 5, 2018. 5 33 CFR 136.103(c). 

6 ACMG claim submission dated August 3, 2019. 7 33 CFR 136.115.

8 June 21, 2019 email from MST1 , in his capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator’s Representative 

(FOSCR).

9 Coast Guard MISLE Activity Number 6473384. 10 USCG Notice of Federal Interest dated May 25, 2018 and issued to .

4

revised invoice dated October 9, 2018 was provided which included interest charges in the amount of 

$483.72. The total amount claimed is $27,738.49.20

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).21 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement 

explaining its determinations. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement for the Claimant’s 

claim against the OSLTF.

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.22

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

entities.23 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 finds facts and makes its determination based 

on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

V. DISCUSSION: 

A responsible party 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.24 A responsible party’s 

liability is strict, joint, and several.25 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.”26 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the law.

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal cost 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.”27 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.”28

 20 ACMG claim submission. 21 33 CFR Part 136. 22 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). 23 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). 24 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 25 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 26 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002)(citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 (1989), 

reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722.). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 
5

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

National Contingency Plan.29 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations governing 

the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.30 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.31 

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. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.32

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

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

provided. The NPFC has determined that the costs invoiced were billed in accordance with the contracted 

rates between the parties, including all subcontractors and third party services. All costs approved for 

payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing, including but not limited to, 

all third party or out of pocket expenses. All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation 

which included invoices and proofs of payment.

The amount of compensable removal costs is $26,304.77 while $1,433.72 was deemed noncompensable for the following reasons: 33 

1. ACMG’s invoice number 2018-H525 charged Pads and 5 x 10 Boom incorrectly and the 

rate schedule does not support the rates utilized. The NPFC has adjusted the rate to 

coincide with the rate schedule pricing.

2. ACMG’s invoice 2018-H525 dated October 9, 2018 charges interest in the amount of 

$483.72 until October 23, 2018. OPA contains no authority that allows the Fund to be

available to pay interest on uncompensated claims for removal costs.

Overall Denied Costs = $1,433.7234

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 in the amount of $27,738.49 is 

approved in the amount of $26,304.77. 

Because this determination is a settlement offer35, the claimant has 60 days in which to accept; the 

failure to do so automatically voids the offer.36 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a settlement offer 

 29 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR Part 136. 31 33 CFR 136.105. 32 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 33 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of these costs. 34 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC. 35 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 
6

at any time prior to acceptance.37 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: 7/25/19 

Supervisor Action: Offer Approved

 

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 compensated 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). 36 33 CFR §136.115(b). 37 Id.