CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : E11908-0003 

Claimant : Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $587,426.84 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 

IX reports that on or about January 9, 2011, the Los Angeles County Public Works 

(LACPW) discovered a sheen in the Dominguez channel near the intersection of the 

channel and 223rd Street in Cason, CA. The Dominguez Channel is a riprap-lined, 

earthen-bottomed flood control channel that is influenced by the ebb and flow of the 

Pacific Ocean, a navigable waterway of the US. It drains into the Port of Los Angeles, 

which is contiguous with the Ocean.1

 

When the sheen was discovered, it was determined that the most-likely cause of the 

discharge came from a Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains) crude oil pipeline that 

runs through the middle of the spill site. Plains was issued a verbal Notice of Federal 

Interest (NOFI) by the EPA Region IX Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) on 

January 16, 2011. On January 17, 2011, it was issued a written NOFI by the FOSC.2 

On January 20, 2011, Plains conducted an underwater assessment of the floor of the 

channel using a SCUBA diver. The diver observed multiple seeps in the assessment area 

releasing fist size globules of oil. A sampled collection system was installed over one of 

the more prolific seeps to allow for sampling from the surface of the channel by boat. The 

diver collected numerous samples and video documented the floor of the channel.3

 

On January 22, 2011, Plains conducted a California State Fire Marshall, Division of 

Pipeline Safety approved hydrotest of the suspect pipeline. The test documented that the 

pipeline was holding pressure and not compromised. On January 24, 2011, after Plains 

hydrotest documented that their pipeline was not leaking, Plains withdrew from the spill. 

LACPW retained Ocean Blue to takeover and maintain the oil recovery operations.4

The FOSC withdrew the NOFI presented to Plains on January 25, 2011. At this time, no 

Responsible Party (RP) has been determined. This incident was reported to the National 

Response Center (NRC) on January 10, 2011 via both report # 964198 and # 964223.5

2. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, Plains, retained West Coast 

Environmental Services (WCES) to install hard and sorbent booms downstream of the 

Carson Blvd Bridge. LACPW had previously deployed its contractor to place booms at 

223rd Street. On January 11, 2011, WCES replaced the County's contractor at the 223rd 

1 See EPA Region IX POLREP # 1 for FPN E11908, dated 1/17/2011.

2 See EPA Region IX POLREP # 1 for FPN E11908, dated 1/17/2011.

3 See EPA Region IX POLREP # 2 for FPN E11908, dated 1/27/2011.

4 See EPA Region IX POLREP # 2 for FPN E11908, dated 1/27/2011.

5 See NRC Report # 964198, dated 1/10/2011, and 964223, also dated 1/10/2011. 

 
Street boom location. Plains had assumed all oil collection and booming activities. 

WCES and other contractors under Plains’ management maintained the booms in the 

channel, collecting oil build up against booms and oily debris. An Incident Action Plan 

(IAP) was initiated on January 18, 2011 with a 24-hour operations period.6 

3. The Claim: On January 30, 2012, Plains submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the amount of 

$587,426.84 for the services provided from January 9 through 24, 2011. 

The claim consists of copies of the following: US EPA POLREPS # 1-5 for FPN E11908; 

NRC Report #s 964198 and 964223; cover letter, dated 1/25/2012; Optional OSLTF 

Claim Form; Dominguez Channel Leak Notes of John Rifilato; photocopies of business 

cards from agencies on-scene; Plains Material Data Safety Sheet for this incident; the 

NOFI, dated 1/16/2011; Email for EPA rescinding the NOFI, dated 1/25/2011; Email 

from CAL Fire allowing Plains to resume operations with its pipe, dated 1/25/2011; Los 

Angeles County Flood Control District Permit for this incident; CAL Fire Pig 

Run/Hydrostatic Test permit for this incident; LACPW permit for WCES; LACPW 

Standard Flood Control permit for this incident; photos and maps of the spill site; the IAP 

for this incident; Test America and California State Fire Marshall lab analyses for this 

incident; Invoicing for Clean Harbors, OC Vacuum, United Site Services, WCES, WGR, 

KM Industrial, McJunkin, Mistras, Quality Integrated, TechCorr, WARC, AH&S 

Contruction, Baker Corp, DeMenno Kerdoon, Ecology Control, Farwest Corrosion, 

Inline, J and J Engineering, McMaster-Carr, Praxair, Valley Industrial, Wilson Pipe, Berg 

Nelson, Goldsmith, Phillips Steel Co. and Wilmington Instrument, as related to this 

incident; Plains personnel costs for this incident; the Plains in-house breakdown and 

explanation of Personnel costs spreadsheet; and internal email correspondence

The review of the actual cost invoicing and daily logs focused on: (1) whether the 

actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations 

at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (2) 

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

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

adequately documented. 

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).

"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 

6 See EPA Region IX POLREP # 1 for FPN E11908, dated 1/17/2011.

 
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 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 

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

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

Under 33 CFR 136.105(e)(8), the claim must include the reasonable costs incurred by the 

claimant in assessing the damages claimed. This includes the reasonable costs of 

estimating the damages claimed, but not attorney's fees or other administrative costs 

associated with preparation of the claim.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The initial FOSC coordination has been established via EPA Region IX POLREPS # 1-

5.

7

 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d)(2)(K).

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 

§ 2701(23), to navigable waters.

3. A Responsible Party could not be determined. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

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

5. 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.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with 

the claim and determined what removal costs presented were for actions in accordance 

7 See EPA POLREPS # 1-5 for FPN E11908.

 
with the NCP, and if the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant had 

incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., 

actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (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. 

As it was determined by US EPA Region IX that the Claimant was no longer considered an 

RP for this incident, it was then necessary to audit costs paid and determine whether or not 

they were reasonable, necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP). After performing the audit, it was determined that the Claimant incurred

$548,526.84 of uncompensated removal costs. Thus, this amount is payable by the OSLTF 

as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs borne by the Claimant and submitted 

to the NPFC under claim #E11908-0003. Additionally, the Claimant states that all costs 

claimed are for uncompensated removal costs it incurred during this incident from January 9 

through 24, 2011. 

Of the original $587,426.84 in claimed costs, $38,900.00 has been denied, as the Claimant 

has not provided documentation to support the Plains personnel costs presented as part of the 

claim. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $548,526.84 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

claim #E11908-0003. These costs are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 

actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. $38,900.00 in claimed costs are denied. 

AMOUNT: $548,526.84

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: