Claim Number 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

911120-0001 

Ocean Blue Environmental Services, Inc. 

OSRO 

Removal Costs 

$1 16,133.21 

Oil Spill Incide11t: On or about 2 1 April 2011 , Ocean Blue Environmental Services, Inc., the 

Claimant (Claimant) was contacted by the Los Angeles Depa1tment of Public Works (LAD PW) 

to respond to an oil pollution incident in the vicinity of the Mega Steel Facility (Mega Steel) in 

Gardena, California. Upon the Claimant's arrival to the scene, they fou nd oil in the water. 1 

Accord ing to the submission, the faci lity had an above ground storage tank that spilled oil 

(cutting oil)

2 and overfl owed into a storm drain which was traced back to their fac ility by Los 

Angeles County Public Works. According to the evidence presented in the submission to the 

Fund, there was an undetennined but significant amount of oil released.3 

Once released, the product traveled west where it entered a storm drain line and traveled 

underground approximately 2.5 miles, then to an open channel (Dominguez Channe l). The 

contamination then traveled approximately 200 feet into a creek located at the no1theast corner of 

A1tesia Blvd (91 Freevvay) and Vem1ont, where the oil mixed with standing water in the creek. 

The Claimant estimated the amount of oil to be approximately I 00, 000 gallons. 4 The size of the 

discharge was estimated to be approximately 500 feet long by 25 feet wide by 4 feet deep. 

The oil mixed with the water in the creek to the point that the Californ ia Department of Fish and 

Game who was the designated State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) determined that the Claimant 

had to pump all of the water from the creek and contain it into a po1table tank for disposal. The 

Dominguez Channe l leads to the Po1t of Los Angeles, which leads to the Pacific Ocean, a 

navigable waterway of the United States. 5 

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT: 

On 26 September 20 1 I, Ocean Blue (Claimant) presented a removal cost claim to the National 

Po llution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the 

amount of $ 19 1, 133 .2 1 for the services provided on or about 2 1 April 20 11 through 4 May 201 I. 

The Claimant received a deposit of $75,000.00 from the responsible pa1ty; therefore the amount 

remaining and requested from the Fund is $ 116,133.21. 

On 8 March 20 12, Mr. , the EPA FOSC assigned to the area of the discharge, 

informed the NPFC that he would not be willing to provide FOSC coordination for this incident. 

On 3 April 201 2, the NPFC denied this c laim because the Claimant fai led to demonstrate that the 

actions unde1taken were properly coordinated with the EPA FOSC pursuant to the governing 

claims regul ations fou nd at 33 CFR 136.203 and 136.205. 

1 Optional OSL TF Claim Form dated 20 September 2011 2 Claimant's Incident Action Plan 3 E-mail from , of Ocean Blue to CPFC claims manager, dated 14 February 20 10, in response to a request 

of additional information. 4 Claimant's !AP 5 33 u.s.c. 2701 
Claimant sought reconsideration on April 12, 201 2 and provided a signed letter from Mr. Robert 

Wise, USEPA FOSC, that stated in part "I am certify ing, post remova l, based on the informat ion 

provided, that $1 16, 133.21 in c la im 911 120-000 1 is consistent with the work completed for 

reimbursement under the third party claims process.,. Cla imant provided no further information in 

suppo1t of its cla im. 

In an effo1i to aid the Claimant, the NPFC contacted the State OSC and requested its file to 

determine what actions had been taken or overseen for this incident. Lt. , who 

was familiar with the inc ident, notified the NPFC that the fil e was unavailable because it was a 

pari of the documentation provided as evidence in a criminal trial against the responsible party. 

On September 2 1, 201 2, the NPFC denied the c la im on reconsideration because the FOSC letter 

did not expla in the actions taken by Claimant or that such acti ons were necessary to prevent, 

mitigate or minimize the effects of the inc ident or that the actions taken were consistent with the 

NCP. 

On or about November 16, 201 2, Mr. , Division Chief, NPFC Claims Di vision, 

communicated with the State OSC regarding the incident. The State OSC stated that the State was 

present during the response and its primary concern was preventing the oil from entering 

Dominguez Channel. He noted that there is documentation to suppo1t the State's presence on 

scene but that it was currently unava ilable because of the criminal trial. 

On November 19, 201 2, Mr. , based on his discussion with the State OSC, rescinded the 

denial on reconsideration. The NPFC he ld the claim in abeyance until the State could provide 

additional information on the response actions taken. On May 28, 2013, the NPFC received 

additional information from the SOSC which were the da ily contempuram:ous fide.I lugs 

indicating response work being performed and oversight being performed by California 

Department of Fish & Game in its capacity as SOSC.

6 

NPFC Determination on Reconsideration 

Under 33 CFR § 136. 1 OS( a) and 136.105( e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessaiy by the Director, NPFC, to 

suppmt the claim. Under 33 CFR 136. l OS(b) each cla im must be in writing, for a sum certai n 

for eac h category of uncompensated damages or remova l costs resulting from a n incident. In 

addition, under 33 CFR 136, the c laimant bears the burde n to prove the removal actions were 

reasonabl e in response to the scope of the oil spill incident. The NPFC has the authority and 

responsibility to perform a reasonableness determination. 

Specifi cally, under 33 CFR 136.203, "a cla ima nt 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 inc urred as a result of these acti ons; 

(c) That the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the Nationa l 

Contingency Pla n or were directed by the FOSC." 

Under 33 CFR 136.2 05 " the amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated 

reasonable removal costs of acti ons taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

6 See 28 May 201 3 email from to NPFC with SOSC fi eld logs attached for the incident. 
w ith the National Contingency Plan or were d irected by the FOSC. Except in exceptiona l 

circumstances, removal activities for whi ch costs are being claimed must have been 

coordinated with the FOSC ... [Emphasis added). 

The NPFC considered all the documentation submitted by the Cla imant and perfonned a de novo 

review of the entire c laim submission. 

NPFC CA rev iewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the c laimant had 

incurred a ll costs c la imed. The review focused on: ( I) whether the actions taken were 

compensable " removal actions,. under OPA and the c laims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., 

actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the inc ident); (2) whether the costs were 

incurred as a result of these actions; (3) whether the actions taken were determined by the 

FOSC to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented and reasonable. 

The N PFC reviewed the contemporaneous daily field logs provided by California Department 

of Fish & Game as SOSC after the conclusion of their criminal case against the Responsible 

Patty. The logs indicate that the actions were overseen by the California Fish and Game. 

The NPFC also determined that the actions taken by the Claimant and its subcontractor(s) were 

reasonable and necessary in order to mitigate the discharge and continuing threat of d ischarge to 

the environment as also confirmed by the SOSC. Pursuant to its de legation the NPFC 

determined that the actions taken by the Cla imant were consistent with the NCP. 

Upon review of the claim submission and supplemental information the NPFC has determined 

that the costs presented and incurred were billed in accordance with the rate schedule and 

determined reasonable at the time services were rendered with the exception of $7,000.01 in costs 

denied by the NPFC whic.:h will be addressed later. 

After reviewing all costs incurred and paid as ev idenced by proof of payment by the Claimant, 

the NPFC has denied the following charges: 

4/2 1/ 11 - The NPFC denies the charge for Project Manager as it is excessive since the NPFC is 

allowing two supervisors. Amount denied is $582 .50; 

The NPFC denies one vehic le charge since personnel was reduced by one Proj ect 

Manager. Amount denied is $180.00; 

4/22111 - The NPFC den ies the charge for Project Manager as it is excessive since the N PFC is 

allowing for one supervisor. Amount denied is $2,J 02.50; 

The NPFC den ies one vehicle charge since personnel was reduced by one Project 

Manager. Amount denied is $742.50; 

4/23/ 11 -The NPFC has reduced the spill management position from Project Manager to the 

Supervisor rate. Amount denied is $607.50; 

4/28/ 11 - The NPFC has reduced the charge for Level C PPE to a Level Das the Leve l C is an 

inappropriate charge for this oil spill response. The amount denied is $72.00; 

4/2911 1 - The NPFC has reduced the charge for Level C PPE to a Level Das the Level C is an 

inappropriate charge for this oil spill response. The amount den ied is $72.00; 
5/1 2/11 - The NPFC has denied the administrative markup charge in the amount of $2,315.51 as 

Ocean Blue has not identified this as a term or condition on their rate schedule; and 

5/4/11 - The NPFC has denied the administrative markup charge in the amount of $325.50 as 

Ocean Blue has not identified this as a term or condition on their rate schedule. 

TOTAL DENIED - $7,000.01 

Based on the foregoing, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact 

incur $109,133.20 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant 

and presented to the NPFC under claim 911120-0001. The Claimant states that all costs 

claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident from 

approximately 21 April 2011 through 2 May 2011. The Claimant represents that 

$109, 133.20 of the costs paid by the Claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by 

the OSL TF as presented by the Claimant. 

Determined Amount: $109,133.20 

Claim Supervise 

Date of Supervisor's review: 07101113 

Supervisor Action: Reconsideration approved 

Supervisor's Comments: