3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 918037-0001

Claimant: Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $28,481.78

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: On November 28, 2017, Middle Bay Transportation (MBT) contacted the 

US Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC), reporting a vehicle accident involving an

18-wheeler and the subsequent discharge of less than 20 gallons of varnish to an isolated area 

near the intersection of Highway 78 and Highway 178 in Ridgeville, South Carolina.1 2 In 

addition, MBT, as the responsible party (RP), reported that soil near the spill was impacted.

3

B. Description of removal actions performed: The owner of the 18-wheeler involved in the 

reported oil discharge, MBT, contracted Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC (Moran) to 

conduct pollution removal activities including the removal of oil. From November 27, 2017, 

through December 12, 2017, removal activities involved halting the discharge of oil from the 

tractor trailer, placing absorbents, collecting samples, digging ditches, and disposing of all 

non-hazardous waste.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANTS:

This claim for uncompensated removal costs was presented to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) on July 24, 2018, by Mr. , of Moran. Moran is specifically 

seeking uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $28,481.78, asserting that MBT

failed to pay them for their removal costs. In addition, Moran asserts that the RP stated that 

“they were turning this claim over to their insurance company.”4

By letter dated August 2, 2018, the NPFC sent an RP Notification Letter to 

(Ms. ) of MBT, notifying MBT of its potential responsibility for the oil removal costs 

associated with the oil spill incident. Ms. responded by email dated August 2, 2018, 

stating that the RP is “working with the insurance party for the other party and expects to 

have this resolve [sic] promptly.”5 To date, there has been no additional correspondence 

received from the RP.

 

1 See, USCG NRC report dated November 28, 2017.

2 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated July 24, 2018. 

3 See, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Environmental Quality Control 

Incident Report dated November 28, 2017.

4 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated July 24, 2018. 

5 See, email from Ms. , RP, to Mr. , NPFC, dated August 2, 2018.
4

As evidence of its claim, the claimant submitted numerous documents associated with its 

response to the oil spill incident. The documents include Invoice # 604616totaling 

$28,481.78; several Moran Environmental Recovery daily worksheets for the period from 

November 27, 2017, through December 12, 2017; Trash Gurl Waste Disposal & Portalets 

Invoices # 612477and 632218; Herc Rentals Invoices # 29698958-0029, 29698958-00310, and 

29702915-00111; Grainger Invoice # 963665338912; and Insight Environmental, LLC Invoice 

# 2018001.

13

Additional Information: The NPFC identified deficiencies with the claim and requested 

additional information by email dated August 7, 2018. The NPFC requested the following 

information: documentation demonstrating that the actions taken by the claimant were 

determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a copy 

of the analytical results associated with the Insight Environmental, LLC Invoice # 2018001, 

proof of payment information from Moran for all third party costs, a copy of the South 

Carolina DHEC report # 201705014, and documentation including correspondence between 

the claimant and the RP.14 

By email dated August 16, 2018, the claimant submitted several documents in response to the 

NPFC’s request. The documents include the following: DHEC Environmental Control 

Incident Report # 201705014; Check Register History Reports for Hertze dated December 1, 

2017, through August 10, 2018; GEL Laboratories LLC Certificate of Analysis Reports dated 

December 4, 2017, and December 18, 2017; INENVI, GRAIN 1, and TRASHG Check 

Register History Reports dated December 1, 2017; and several emails between Moran and 

Container Port from June 29, 2018, through July 9, 2018.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines, as described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability 

will include “removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

 

6 See, Invoice # 60461 describing quantity of items, descriptions, and unit pricing for Moran’s response to the 

ASFTRN Varnish Spill from November 27, 2017, through December 12, 2017.

7 See, Invoice # 61247 describing the cost of portalet delivery and service for November 29, 2017.

8 See, Invoice # 63221 describing delivery, can liners, pick up, storage, and transportation of a dumpster for 

November 28, 2017, through January 10, 2018.

9 See, Invoice # 29698958-002 describing Tele handler equipment rental for November 28 2017, through November 

29, 2017, totaling $1,267.59.

10 See, Invoice #29698958-003 describing Min-excavator rental for November 28 2017, through December 1, 2017, 

totaling $944.10.

11 See, Invoice # 29702915-001 describing r Compact Track Loader rental for November 29, 2017, through 

December 6, 2017, totaling $1170.24.

12 See, Invoice # 9636653389 describing the purchase of two (2) fire extinguishers. 

13 See, Invoice # 2018001 describing spill response and analytical charges.

14 See, email from Mr. , NPFC, to Mr. , Claimant, dated August 7, 2018.
5

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any 

form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other 

than dredged spoil”.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is 

available, pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)(4) and 2713 and the OSLTF claims 

adjudication regulations at 33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims for uncompensated removal 

costs that are determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan and 

uncompensated damages. 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”.

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in 

court to recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC 

§2713(c) and 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount 

of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate 

compensation is unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs 

may be presented to the Fund.” 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing 

to the NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the 

Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each 

category of uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In 

addition, under 33 CFR 136, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions 

were reasonable in response to the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the 

authority and responsibility to perform a reasonableness determination. Specifically, 

under 33 CFR 136.203, “a claimant must establish -

(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 determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.”

Under 33 CFR 136.205 “the amount of compensation allowable is the total of 

uncompensated reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the 

FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the 
6

FOSC. Except in exceptional circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being 

claimed must have been coordinated with the FOSC.” [Emphasis added].

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

Overview:

1. There is no evidence of FOSC coordination.

2. There is no evidence demonstrating that the substance spilled substantially threatened a

navigable waterway of the United States.

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has been 

filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs.

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(2)

Analysis: The claimant failed to provide substantiation that the actions taken were determined 

by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan. The claimant failed to 

provide substantiation that the substance spilled presented a substantial threat to a navigable 

waterway of the United States. 

By email dated August 9, 2018, the NPFC contacted the US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region 4 and requested that the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) provide comment 

on what activities Moran conducted on November 27, 2017, and whether those activities were 

under their direction and conducted in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and if the 

material discharged from the vehicle entered or substantially threatened a navigable waterway of 

the United States.

15

 The EPA Region 4 Duty Officer responded via email dated August 9, 2018, 

stating:

I was the Duty Officer for EPA Region 4 during the week of 11/27/17. No 

request for coordination came from the State or from Moran Environmental. The 

spill was reported to be less than 20 gallons (to asphalt), which is below our 

threshold for response. I confirmed (via landline) that the RP had secured a 

cleanup contractor. No other EPA FOSC coordinator was requested or 

occurred.16 

Therefore, the claimant failed to provide substantiation that the actions taken were 

determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

In the Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated July 24, 2018, the claimant stated that 

“Released fluids impacted storm drain ditches, road and grassy area where truck was 

moved to by the wrecker company.” As evidence for its claim, the claimant submitted 

the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) 

Environmental Control Incident Report for Incident No. 201705014. Under the 

description of the incident, the DHEC stated, “RP reporting less than 20 gallons of 

Varnish-non oil base (nonhazardous) to the asphalt, some soil impacted.” In addition, the 

 

15 See, email from Mr. , NPFC, to USEPA Region 4 Duty Officer dated August 9, 2018. 

16 See, email from Mr. , EPA Region 4 Duty Officer, to Mr. , NPFC, dated 

August 9, 2018.