3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916007-0002

Claimant: E.R.R., LLC

Type of Claimant: Corporate

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $135,000.00

Action Taken: Denied

I. SUMMARY: 

On May 13, 2015, United States Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Incident Management 

Division (CG IMD) received a report of an unknown sheen and heavy fuel oil odor coming from 

the Chevron Oronite dock at Mile Marker 72 on the Lower Mississippi River). The incident was 

reported to the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 1116353, which indicated that the 

spill was reported by an employee at Port Ship Services located at 999 Hwy 23 in Belle Chasse, 

LA 70037.1 

CG IMD personnel conducted a shoreline assessment from the Chevron dock up river of the 

spill to the dock at Port Ship Services. During that same time, a Coast Guard aerial survey 

observed a heavy oil-sheen on the shoreline from the Evergreen Resource Recovery facility 

(Evergreen or later changed to E.R.R., LLC2) located near Mile Marker 74 just north of Port Ship 

Services. CG IMD personnel estimated approximately nine barrels of waste oil had contaminated 

approximately one mile of shoreline along the Lower Mississippi River.

3

CG IMD deployed to Evergreen and questioned Evergreen personnel and its Person-InCharge (PIC) of the facility and learned that on May 12, 2015, the night before the incident, 

Evergreen had been off-loading oily water from the barge DBL 118 when the Evergreen PIC and 

Captain from the tug OMAHA (tending the DBL 118) had observed an oily sheen on the water 

in the vicinity of the transfer area. A statement from Evergreen confirmed that all transfer lines 

and connections between Evergreen and the DBL 118 were checked for integrity and possible 

leaks before and during the transfer and no abnormalities were reported. The sheen was not 

reported to the NRC by the Evergreen PIC or by the Captain of the OMAHA.

4

The CG IMD ruled out the tug OMAHA as a possible source of discharge because the vessel 

didn’t carry the type of oil that was discharged into the waterway. However, they did obtain 

spill samples of the oil impacting the waterway and adjoining shoreline, a source sample from 

Evergreen’s 3" transfer hose, and a source sample from Evergreen’s facility storage tank. 

Samples from the DBL 118 were not obtained. The samples were submitted to the USCG 

Marine Safety Laboratory (CG MSL) for analysis. On July 17, 2015, the IMD received CG 

MSL report #15-222 which identified the spill sample obtained from the Lower Mississippi 

 

1 NRC Report # 1116353, opened 5/13/2015. The NPFC notes that Evergreen (E.R.R), which was later identified as 

the responsible party, did not notify the NRC as required by 33 CFR 153.203.

2 Louisiana Notification of Change Form (NOC-1) dated December 20, 2016, name change effective September 01, 

2014.

3 Statement from PO , FOSCR, to the NPFC, sent via email on 12/10/2015.

4

Id.
4

River and source sample from Evergreen’s storage tank as a common source. As such, Evergreen 

was identified as the responsible party (RP) for this oil spill.5

On December 20, 2016, Evergreen Resource Recovery, LLC (the RP) submitted paperwork 

to officially change its name to become E.R.R, LLC (the Claimant), retroactive to September 1, 

2014 (and prior to the oil spill).6

With its claim submission, E.R.R., LLC claims that, during the course of the removal

activities, the Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) hired for cleanup and removal activities,

Oil Mop Environmental Services (OMI), rented parking space, storage space, and personnel

muster areas, and a deck barge from it. While it invoiced and was subsequently sent a check by

OMI for the rental, the Claimant states that it failed to cash the check (due to an administrative 

error on its part). The Claimant asserts that, at that point, OMI refused to reissue payment to 

E.R.R., LLC for services rendered as a result of the oil spill.7 E.R.R. is litigating this matter in 

the State of Louisiana in Division B of the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of 

Plaquemines (Case Number 62-944). 

II. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the OSLTF.8 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.

9 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.10 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.

 

5 USCG MSL Case Report # 15-222, dated 7/22/2015.

6 Louisiana DEQ Notification of Change Form for E.R.R., LLC, dated 12/20/2016.

7 Claim Submission Cover letter, submitted with the claim on 2/11/2019.

8 33 CFR Part 136.

9 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).

10 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).