3

 Tow Boat presented its invoice to the RP on September 19, 2020 and stated that no action has 

been taken by the RP to pay Tow Boat’s uncompensated removal costs.12 Tow Boat presented 

its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$7,200.00.13 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined that 

$7,200.00 is compensable and offers this amount as full compensation of this claim.14

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On September 19, 2020, Mr. , Harbor Master of Tahoe Keys Marina, reported to 

the NRC via report # 1287773 that a recreational vessel was sinking at the Tahoe Keys Marina.15 

Tahoe Keys Marina is located on South Lake Tahoe, a navigable waterway of the United States.

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the sunken vessel (CF-9143-

UZ) Hull# FGE24009A494 is identified as the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.16 After 

Tow Boat US removed the vessel from the water, it located the vessel registration paperwork 

which identified Mr. as the registered owner.17 On February 20, 2021, 

the NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to Mr. .

18 A 

Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the owner and/or operator that a claim was 

presented to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking reimbursement of 

uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of response services performed that resulted 

from a vessel or facility that was identified as the source of a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States. 

Recovery Operations

On September 19, 2020, the Harbor Master and an employee of the Tahoe Keys Marina 

boomed off the contaminated area around boat slip # Emerald B-18 with oil absorbent boom and 

absorbent pads.19 The Harbor Master contacted Tow Boat to remove the sunken vessel out of 

the slip.20

On September 19, 2020 at 9:45 a.m., local time, Tow Boat U.S. arrived on scene with oil 

boom and oil absorbent pads. Tow Boat found the vessel submerged in the Emerald B-18 boat 

 

12 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, questions 5 and 6 and signed by , page 1 of 3 of the claim 

submission.

13 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2); Tow Boat claim submission received on February 17, 2021. 14 33 CFR 136.115. 15 NRC Report # 1287773 dated September 19, 2020. 16 USCG Sector San Francisco MISLE Case ID: 1236658, Situation Report dated September 19, 2020 and OSPR 

Spill Incident Information DFG # 20FG1652.

17 Email from Tahoe Keys Marina providing RP identification explanation. 18 NPFC RP Notification Letter sent to Mr. dated February 20, 2021. 19 Tahoe Keys Marina Sunken Vessel Report dated September 19, 2020, Manifest of Materials Used for Vessel 

Salvage/Spill Control Section, p. 2 of 2.

20 Tahoe Keys Marina Sunken Vessel Report dated September 19, 2020, p. 1 of 2.
4

slip. Tow Boat attached lift bags to various vessel locations21 in order to raise the gunnels above 

the water. Gas pumps were used to try and dewater the vessel but the vessel continued to take on 

water. Tow Boat transported the vessel using lift bags to the Tahoe Keys Marina gantry for haulout.22

The FOSC agrees that the actions taken by both the Tahoe Keys Marina and Tow Boat US 

were necessary to prevent, minimize or mitigate the effects of the incident and the actions taken 

were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).23

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)24 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.25 When an RP denies a claim or 

has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the 

NPFC.26 As of the crafting of this Determination, Mr. ’s boat remains at the Tahoe 

Keys Marina until he settles his debt with Tahoe Keys Marina.27 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after ninety days of receipt, a claimant may elect to 

present its claim to the NPFC.28 On February 17, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for 

uncompensated removal costs from Tow Boat U.S. The claim included an OSLTF Claim Form 

and the Tow Boat U.S. invoice dated Septemeber 19, 2020 in the amount of $7,200.00. 29

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).30 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.31 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

 

21 Tow Boat U.S. Salvage Invoice dated September 19, 2020, p. 3 of 3 of the claim submission, Comments Section. 22 Tow Boat U.S. Salvage Invoice dated September 19, 2020, p. 3 of 3 of the claim submission, Comments Section. 23 USEPA FOSC Coordination email dated March 11, 2021. 24 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 25 33 CFR 136.103. 26 Id. 27 Email from Tahoe Keys Marina, Harbor Master to the NPFC dated March 18, 2021. 28 33 CFR 136.103. 29 Tow Boat claim submission received on February 17, 2021. 30 33 CFR Part 136. 31 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)).
5

or conclusions reached by other entities.32 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: 

 An 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.33 An RP’s liability

is strict, joint, and several.34 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.”35 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs 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.”36 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.”37 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).38 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.39 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.40

 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;

 

32 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). 33 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 34 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 35 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). 36 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 37 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 38 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 39 33 CFR Part 136. 40 33 CFR 136.105.