2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E18617-0001 

Claimant: Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $17,288.94 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $17,288.94 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On June 22, 2018, , from the Oklahoma Corporation Comission (OCC), the 

State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) for the incident, made notification to the United States 

Coast Guard’s National Response Center (NRC) for the discovery of a slow leak of crude oil on 

June 21, 2018.1 The leak was determined to be originating from an abandoned 8-inch steel 

pipeline that leads into the Washita River, a tributary of the Red River, and a navigable waterway 

of the United States.2

 The amount of spilled oil was unknown although a black crude was visible 

on the water’s surface.3

 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (Magellan or Claimant), Oklahoma 

Corporation Commission (OCC) in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), and 

A Clean Environment (ACE) in its capacity as the Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO), 

responded to the spill in order to conduct an initial site assessment.4 The assessment revealed the 

presence of four (4) 8-inch pipelines that sat within 25-feet of one another with no apparent holes 

that would explain the source of the leak. 

 Magellan hired ACE to handle response actions to mitigate the effects of the incident.5 The 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hired a local subcontractor, Elite 

Maintenance Services, LLC to excavate and cap the pipeline.6

 Magellan presented its 

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

$17,288.94 on March 12, 2019.7 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful 

consideration has determined that $17,288.94 is compensable and offers this amount as full and 

final compensation for this claim.8

 

1

 NRC Report # 1216089 

2

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC, Page 1 of 3, Section 1.1.2 Site Descrption 

3

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC Page 1 of 3, Section 1.1.2.2 Descrption of Threat 4

 Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. Claim Submission, Page 11 of 28, ACE Incident Report dated June 21, 2018 

from , Project Manager 5

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC Page 1 of 3, Section 2.1.1 Response Actions to Date 

6

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC Page 1 of 3, Section 2.1.1 Response Actions to Date 7

 Optional OSLTF Claim Form submission signed and dated March 5, 2019 by received and datestamped by NPFC on March 12, 2019. 

8

 33 CFR 136.115. 

 

4

to stop the oil from continuing to discharge into the Washita River.16 USEPA brought in Elite 

Maintenance Services LLC to excavate and cap the pipeline. Excavation began on July 2, 2018. 

The pipeline was excavated 100-200 feet north of the river bank. The pipeline was cut using a 

“clamshell” cutter and the downside (south) portion of the pipe going into the Washita River 

was vacuumed out to remove the remaining oil. The pipeline was subsequently plugged on both 

sides of the cut, with final activities concluding on July 13, 2018.17

II. CLAIMANT 

 On March 12, 2019, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from 

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (Magellan or Claimant), in the amount of $17,288.94. The 

Claimant provided an Optional OSLTF Claim Form; ACE Invoice # 4791 to Magellan; ACE 

Daily work reports; ACE Incident Report from (ACE Project Manager); photos 

documenting area before, during, and after remediation; January 28, 2019 email printout of an 

initial June 21, 2018 email from David Lansdale of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to 

 that advised EPA of the spill and also that ACE was hired for remediation; June 29, 

2018 EPA Pollution / Solution Report from ; July 6, 2018 Non-hazardous Waste 

Manifest (Waste Tracking Number 06262018-1); June 28, 2018 Oklahoma Dept. of 

Environmental Quality NHIW (non-hazardous industrial waste) Certification; June 26, 2018 

SORD Landfill Generator Waste Profile Sheet. 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).18 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.19 The NPFC may rely upon, but is not bound by the findings of fact, 

opinions, or conclusions reached by other entities.20 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. 

 

16 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC Pages 1-2 of 3, Section 2.1.1 Response Actions to Date 

17 United States Environmental Protection Agency Pollution/Situation Report, Arco Pipeline - E18617 – PolRep #1, 

dated June 29, 2018 from , OSC Pages 1-2 of 3, Section 2.1.1 Response Actions to Date 

18 33 CFR Part 136. 

19 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). 20 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).