3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1

 

Claim Number: UCGPG22003-URC001

Claimant: Boat Town Marina & Rentals LLC

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $3,800.00 

Action Taken: Denied

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On March 18, 2022, United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Detroit received notification 

from the USCG’s National Response Center (NRC) via report # 13313752 regarding a sunken 

vessel, “SEA RAY” (P/C ) that was actively discharging oil at Blue Water Marine 

and into the Clinton River, a navigable waterway of the United States.3

 The reporting party 

informed MST3 , Federal On Scene Coordinator’s Representative 

(FOSCR), that the owner of the vessel was attempting to dewater the vessel by pumping the oily 

water directly into the Clinton River and was using Dawn dish soap to disperse the sheen. MST3 

 then contacted the local Sheriff’s Department to instruct the owner to cease operations 

until he arrived on scene.4

USCG Sector Detroit, responded as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and once the 

FOSCR arrived on scene, he witnessed a significant sheen surrounding the Pleasure Craft (P/C) 

 – “SEA RAY” and discovered a substantial amount of motor oil inside the cabin of 

the vessel. The FOSC issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the vessel owner which he 

signed and accepted.5 The vessel owner ultimately determined that he could not fund the 

cleanup.6

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),7 Mr. , owner of 

the P/C , “SEA RAY”, was identified as the responsible party (RP) for the spill 

 

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 NRC Report Number 1331375.

3 United States Coast Guard SITREP dated April 28, 2022.

4 Witness Statement from FOSCR, MST3 , dated March 23, 2022. 5 USCG NOFI dated March 18, 2022.

6 Witness Statement from FOSCR, MST3 , dated March 23, 2022. 7 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)
4

incident.8 The FOSC issued a Notice of Federal Interest (“NOFI”) and Notice of Federal 

Assumption (NOFA) to Mr. ; both dated March 18, 2022.9 The FOSC

federalized the incident and opened a Federal Project Number (FPN) G22003 and hired T & T 

Marine Salvage, a response contractor, to perform the necessary response actions needed to 

mitigate the threat.

10

In this claim submission, Boat Town Marina & Rentals LLC (“Boat Town” or “Claimant”) 

stated that because Mr. did not remove his boat before October 31, 2021 per the lease 

agreement therefore the following charges were incurred:

1. Winter Storage - $400.00; 

2. Bubbler purchase and installation – $1,000.00; 

3. Install signs, provide rope line and life preserver -$500.00; 

4. Install straps under SEA RAY to prevent further sinking - $500.00; 

5. Deliver pump and attempt to pump out boat - $400.00; and 

6. Per USCG requirement, labor and boat rental to tow boat to launch and place on 

trailer - $1,000.00. 

TOTAL Claimed - $3,800.00 

Mr. of Boat Town stated he presented his removal costs claim to the RP in the 

amount of $3,800.0011 Boat Town presented its uncompensated removal costs claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $3,800.00.12 

In this submission, Mr. stated Boat Town charged winter storage for the SEA RAY 

via a flat rate fee of $400.00. The winter storage was incurred before the actual oil spill on 

March 18, 2022; Boat Town purchased and installed a bubbler in Well 28 and charged a rate of 

$1,000.00; Boat Town purchased materials and made open water signs and installed them due to 

Harrison Township enforcement requirements because the SEA RAY posed a safety hazard; 

Boat Town installed straps under the SEA RAY on or about January 18, 2022, prior to the 

reported incident on March 18, 2022; Boat Town charged $400.00 for the delivery and 

installation of a pump and attempted to pump out the SEA RAY to keep it afloat; and Boat Town 

charged $1,000.00 for labor and boat rental services to tow the SEA RAY to the boat launch and 

place it on a trailer. Boat Town further asserts it cited a price based on the assumption that 

$1,000.00 was a bargain compared to Tow Boat US pricing for vessel removal.

13 

The FOSC did not direct any actions performed by Boat Town but has determined that the 

incident discharged into the Clinton River, a navigable waterway of the United States and 

opened a Federal Project Number to hire a response contractor to handle cleanup and remove all 

 

8 USCG POLREP 1 and Final dated March 21, 2022.

9 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated March 18, 2022 and USCG Notice of Federal Assumption (NOFA) 

dated March 18, 2022.

10 Witness Statement from FOSCR, MST3 , dated March 23, 2022. 11 See, March 30, 2021 invoice from Boat Town with an itemized Demand for Payment bill addressed to the RP. 

OSLTF Claim Form states costs were presented to the RP on April 1, 2022.

12 Boat Town claim submission received April 19, 2022. 13 Email dated July 13, 2022 from Mr. to NPFC describing claimed incident response actions. 

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

6

incident.23 The FOSC issued a Notice of Federal Interest (“NOFI”) and Notice of Federal 

Assumption (NOFA) to Mr. ; both dated March 18, 2022.24 

On April 26, 2022, the NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to Mr. 

.

25 A Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the owner/operator that a claim was 

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

uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States by the RP’s vessel or facility. 

Recovery Operations

USCG Sector Detroit, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), responded, directed, and 

oversaw the response and removal operations.26 On March 18, 2022, Sector Detroit FOSCR 

opened a Federal Project Number via the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) and contracted 

with T & T Marine Salvage, who boomed the vessel utilizing absorbent boom on March 21, 

2022 and then T & T Marine utilized absorbent materials to collect the recoverable product from 

within the vessel before dewatering and re-floating the vessel. T & T Marine then pumped all 

fuel from the vessel’s tanks eliminating the threat of a discharge of oil to the navigable 

waterway.27 The response actions were determined complete by the FOSC on March 21, 2022.28

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

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

1990 (OPA)29 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.30 

Boat Town presented a demand for payment in the amount of $3,800.00 to Mr. 

 dated March 30, 2022.31 Boat Town confirmed the invoice was submitted to the RP 

on April 1, 2022.32 Boat Town reported that the RP did not have the money to pay.33

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after ninety days of receipt or denies a claim, a claimant 

may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.34 The Claimant presented its costs to the RP on April 

 

23 USCG POLREP 1 and Final dated March 21, 2022. 24 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated March 18, 2022 and USCG Notice of Federal Assumption 

(NOFA) dated March 18, 2022. 25 NPFC RP Notification Letter sent to Mr. dated April 22, 2022. 26 USCG SITREP-Pol One and Final dated March 21, 2022. 27 USCG SITREP-Pol One and Final dated March 21, 2022. 28 USCG Witness Statement of dated March 23, 2022. 29 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 30 33 CFR 136.103. 31 Boat Town Marina and Rentals LLC invoice dated March 30, 2022. 32 See, OSLTF Claim Form, question 5, received on April 19, 2022. 33 See, OSLTF Claim Form, question 6 received on April 19, 2022 and USCG Witness Statement of 

 dated March 23, 2022. 34 33 CFR 136.103.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
7

1, 2022.35 The NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from Boat Town 

Marina and Rentals LLC on April 19, 2022.36

 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).37 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.38 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.39 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.40 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.41 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.”42 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.”43 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 

 

35 See, OSLTF Claim Form, question 5, received on April 19, 2022. 36 Boat Town Marina and Rentals LLC claim submission received on April 19, 2022. 37 33 CFR Part 136. 38 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)). 39 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). 40 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 41 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 42 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). 43 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).
8

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”44 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).45 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.46 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.47 

 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.48

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.49

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the expenses claimed must be 

denied as outlined below: 

Winter Storage: 

Boat Town asserted that the RP failed to remove his vessel in accordance with the Boat Slip 

Rental that resulted in the Marina storing the vessel resulting in $400.00 in winter storage costs. 

The FOSC determined that Boat Town’s winter storage charges for the RP’s vessel effective 

October 31, 202150 was not in accordance with the NCP nor associated with the oil spill incident 

on March 18, 2022.51 

A claimant must carry its burden of proving an entitlement to reimbursement by the OSLTF 

under OPA before NPFC can authorize payment.52 Just like any other trier of fact, NPFC is 

required to carefully consider the credibility of the evidence submitted by the claimant. If the 

evidence supporting a claim is not credible, then NPFC must deny the claim. Here, the claimant 

 

44 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 45 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 46 33 CFR Part 136 47 33 CFR 136.105. 48 33 CFR 136.203 49 33 CFR 136.205. 50 See, email from Boat Town to NPFC dated July 13, 2022 regarding winter storage. No dates of service or daily 

amounts were explained that total the $400.00 claimed. 51 See, email from the FOSC to the NPFC from August 1, 2022 indicating that Boat Town’s request is associated 

with services prior to the March 18, 2022 oil spill incident and is not determined to be consistent with the NCP. 

Additionally, the claimant did not provide a copy of the contractual terms associated with charging for winter 

storage so the rates and precise dates remain unsubstantiated.

52 See, 33 CFR 136.105(a). “The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim.” 
9

has failed to provide credible evidence in support of its claim against the OSLTF. The evidence 

in this case shows that Boat Town has not demonstrated that the winter storage fees were post 

spill or a result of the oil spill but rather pre-spill contractual terms for the boat slip rental dated 

April 8, 2021.53

Purchase of Bubbler: 

Boat Town requested $1,000.00 for the purchase and installation of a bubbler for Well 28 

(boat slip rented by the RP).54 As a threshold matter, the FOSC states that this action was 

performed before the March 18, 2022 oil spill and as such, is not associated with incident.55 

Additionally, the NPFC requested a purchase receipt, proof of payment, a detailed explanation of 

why the purchase was made, who directed the purchase, when the installation was performed and 

requested an itemized breakdown of personnel, materials and equipment associated with the 

bubbler installation.56 Since Boat Town’s actions were not “directed by the FOSC”, and since 

the claimant did not provide any other requested information to substantiate the bubbler costs 

claimed, this cost must be denied on this basis.57 

Installation of open water signs along with a rope line and life preserver per Harrison 

Township: 

Boat Town requested $500.00 for the installation of open water signs and also requested 

compensation for a rope line and a life preserver that it states was at the request of Harrison 

Township.58 The NPFC requested that Boat Town explain the purpose of the open water signs; 

provide the timeframe that the open water signs were used; provide a detailed explanation 

regarding the need for rope line and a life preserver; provide the name of who specifically 

requested these items and why; and provide an itemization of the costs for each item including 

proof of payment.59

Boat Town responded and stated that the Harrison Township code enforcement required the 

signs. They further stated that in the cold of winter, they made signs and mounted them on the 

boat and dock. They further stated they had to provide a rope and life preserver just in case 

someone fell through the ice.60 Based on the costs claimed and limited information provided, the 

NPFC has determined that Boat Town did not meet its burden to establish the amounts claimed 

and even if that had met their burden, the costs claimed were incurred prior to the March 18, 

 

53 See, USCG Sector Detroit Photographic Sheet, MISLE Case 1296890, Exhibit #CG-4 dated March 24, 2022. 54 See, Boat Town Marina and Rentals LLC claim submission received on April 19, 2022, specifically page 3 of 3, 

identified as Boat Town demand for payment invoice to the RP dated March 30, 2022.

55 See, email from the FOSC to the NPFC from August 1, 2022 indicating that Boat Town’s request is associated

with services prior to the March 18, 2022 oil spill incident and is not determined to be consistent with the NCP.

56 See, email to Boat Town requesting additional information to support the costs claimed dated June 23, 2022. 57 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the bubbler 

costs, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and therefore are not part of the 

response to the incident. 58 See, Boat Town Marina and Rentals LLC claim submission received on April 19, 2022, specifically page 3 of 3, 

identified as Boat Town demand for payment invoice to the RP dated March 30, 2022.

59 See, email to Boat Town requesting additional information to support the costs claimed dated June 23, 2022. 60 See, email from Boat Town to NPFC dated July 13, 2022 regarding these costs. Boat Town did not provide 

adequate documentation to support the costs claimed however, on August 1, 2022, the FOSC determined these 

actions were performed before the March 18, 2022 oil spill incident and therefore are not consistent with the NCP.
10

2022 oil spill and were not at the direction of the FOSC. As such, this cost is denied on that 

basis.61

Delivery and use of a pump: 

 Boat Town requested $400.00 for the delivery of a pump and for the attempt to pump out the 

boat owned by the RP. The NPFC requested that Boat Town provide an itemized breakdown of 

the amount claimed along with an explanation of how the pump was obtained, provide the dates 

of service for the attempted pumping of the boat, and a full description of the personnel services 

provided to perform this response action.62 Boat Town responded stating that a partner, 

, owned two pumps. Mr of Boat Town further stated he installed a pump 

when there was still ice63. The following day, Mr. , independent contractor to Boat 

Town, went to ’s garage and put a second pump on the boat that day. Boat Town closed by 

stating they thought $400.00 was a reasonable price for the use of the pumps, the time spent, and 

the weather conditions to avoid spills into the Clinton River.64

Based on the costs claimed and limited information provided, the NPFC has determined that 

Boat Town did not meet its burden by providing the requested supporting documentation for the 

amount claimed and even if they had met their burden, the costs claimed were incurred prior to 

the March 18, 2022 oil spill and were not at the direction of the FOSC. As such, this cost is 

denied on that basis.65

Installation of straps under the RP’s vessel: 

Boat Town requested $500.00 for the installation of straps placed under the RP’s vessel in 

order to prevent further sinking. The NPFC requested they provide the dates the straps were 

installed along with an itemization of all costs that make up the $500.00 requested. The NPFC 

also requested that they provide the information on how the straps were obtained and what the 

final disposition of the straps was.

66 Boat Town stated the straps were placed in January 2022, 

two months prior to the oil spill incident.67 Based on the costs claimed and limited information 

provided, the NPFC has determined that Boat Town did not meet its burden to establish the 

amounts claimed and even if they had met their burden, the costs were incurred prior to the 

 

61 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the cost for 

signs, rope and a life preserver, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and 

therefore are not part of the response to the incident. 62 See, email to Boat Town requesting additional information to support the costs claimed dated June 23, 2022. 63 Date unknown and not provided as requested. 

64 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the pump 

costs, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and therefore are not part of the 

response to the incident. 65 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the cost for 

delivery and use of pumps, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and

therefore are not part of the response to the incident. 66 See, email to Boat Town requesting additional information to support the costs claimed dated June 23, 2022.

67 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the 

installation of straps, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and therefore are 

not part of the response to the incident. 

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)
11

March 18, 2022 oil spill and were not at the direction of the FOSC. As such, this cost is denied 

on that basis.68

Removal of vessel from the water and placed on trailer: 

 Boat Town requested $1,000.00 for the removal of the vessel from the water and placement 

onto a trailer. The claimant asserts that the response action was a requirement of the United 

States Coast Guard.69 The NPFC requested a detailed narrative regarding the USCG requirement 

to remove the vessel along with documentation demonstrating that Boat Town was directed by 

the USCG to perform this task as a means of mitigating a threat of future discharge of oil into the 

navigable waterway. Lastly, the NPFC requested an itemized breakdown on the personnel, 

materials, and equipment used along with the dates, times, and names of all personnel 

involved.70 

Since Boat Town’s actions were not “directed by the FOSC”, and since the claimant did not 

provide any other requested information to substantiate the requirement and need to remove the 

vessel in order to mitigate a continued threat of a discharge of oil, this cost must be denied on 

this basis.71 

Overall Denied Costs = $3,800 

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

reasons outlined above, the entirety of claim is denied. 

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/6/22 

Supervisor Action: Denial Approved 

 

68 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the 

installation of straps, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and therefore are 

not part of the response to the incident. 69 See, Boat Town Marina and Rentals LLC claim submission received on April 19, 2022. 70 See, email to Boat Town requesting additional information to support the costs claimed dated June 23, 2022. 71 See, 33 CFR 136.203. However, even if Boat Town could provide adequate documentation to support the vessel 

removal costs, the FOSC determined that the actions were performed before March 18, 2022 and therefore are not 

part of the response to the incident. 

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