2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E11908-0004 

Claimant: State of California Dept. Fish & Wildlife, OSPR 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $9,819.16 

Facts

Oil Spill Incident

On or about January 9, 2011, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Flood 

Maintenance Division (LACDPW) discovered a sheen in the Dominguez Channel, a riprap lined, 

earthen bottom flood control channel. Investigations reflected that the sheen was originating 

from an area approximately 100 meters south of the intersection of Carson Boulevard and the 

Channel. The Channel is tidally influenced from the Pacific Ocean and drains into the Port of 

Los Angeles, which is contiguous with the ocean. 

A series of investigations and sampling of the sheen was directed by , the EPA 

FOSC, LACDPW,1 and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The LACDPW 

and RWQCB performed file and database searches in an effort to identify potential sources of 

the sheen. LACDPW investigated county sewer lines, channel berm sub-surface drain lines, and 

local facilities that were not currently in the databases. RWQCB facilitated access to local 

assessment and remediation sites for further investigation, coordinated with California State Fire 

Marshal, Health Hazardous Materials Division (SFM) in identifying the universe of pipelines in 

the vicinity of the site.

On January 25, 2011, the EPA FOSC, ,

3 issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) 

to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and directed the Claimant to continue oil 

collection operations. EPA START sampled two remediation sites with known light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) for fingerprint analysis. Laboratory results were inconclusive. 

EPA excavated across the pipeline corridor to the North of the release on the Active RV 

property. No evidence of petroleum release was noted.

LACDPW and RWQCB identified two potential sources with known LNAPL contamination of 

ground water. On February 10, 2011, EPA START sampled monitoring well #1 at the Carson 

Air Harbor site (CAH-MW#1). On February 14, 2011, EPA START sampled a monitoring well 

at the 76 Station. These samples were sent to the USCG Marine Safety Lab for fingerprint 

analysis. The laboratory results were received on February 23, 2011, and were inconclusive. 

 

1 The LA County Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division, is the planning and policy arm of 

the Flood Control District.

2 The Regional Water Quality Control Board for LA County regulates ground and surface waters under its 

jurisdiction, protests water quality and establishes requirements for discharges into LA County waters.

3 On January 26, 2011, the FOSC role was transferred to FOSC .

4

OSPR took six (6) samples of the oil, from various points of the Channel.9 Samples (Lab 

numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5)10 were analyzed by GC/MS using PCL Method PH51 for petroleum 

hydrocarbon confirmation and comparison to spill samples S-006-11-2, 4 &5. This method 

incorporates quality control and quality assurance procedures to assure stable and consistent 

analytical system response for valid fingerprint comparison.11 Petroleum hydrocarbons were 

confirmed in the samples 1, 2, 4, and 5. The analysis provided for sample # 1 demonstrates that 

in the Analysist’s opinion, sample # 1 is similar to spill samples 2, 4 and 5. The differences 

between sample # 1 and samples # 2, 4, and 5 are found in the n-alkanes and the napthlenes and 

could be caused by weathering.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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. 

 9 See, Sample Information and Analysis Results, dated Thursday, January 27, 2011. 10 Lab # 1 was taken from West Hynes, 93 line, Exxon Mobil, Lab # 2 was taken from oily scum & water from 

Dominguez Channel (coordinates provided in lab analysis), Lab # 3 was taken from a clean sorbent boom, Lab # 4 

was taken from oiled sorbent boom from Dominguez Channel (coordinates provided in lab analysis), Lab # 5 was 

taken from 223rd & Channel, Lab # 6 was taken from 223rd & Channel. 11 Samples 3 and 6 were placed on hold. 
5

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]. 

Determination of Loss:

A. Findings of Facts 

1. Federal On-Scene Coordination was provided by OSC , U.S. EPA, Region 

IX.

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

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

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. Evidence in the administrative record establishes that the Claimant is not the responsible 

party for this incident. 

5. The claim was submitted within the six-year statute of limitations for claims. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1). 

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

the claim and determined that some removal costs presented were for actions in 

accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below. 

7. The review of the actual costs, invoices and dailies focused on the evaluation of whether 

such costs qualify as “Compensation Allowable” under 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis

The NPFC Claims Manager has reviewed the actual cost invoices and data 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, and mitigate the effects of the incident); (2) whether the costs were 
6

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

and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

OSPR seeks reimbursement of their uncompensated response costs associated the “Carson 

Dominguez Channel Mystery” oil spill incident. After submitting their costs in the amount of 

$2,375.57 to the NPFC on July 16, 2013, OSPR provided a corrected sum certain in the amount 

of $9,819.16. 

In support of OSPR’s costs, the claimant provided Attendance Labor Distribution Reports,12

State of California Response Cost Transmittal, Analysis Results, Investigation Report, Incident 

Action Plan (IAP),13 and two (2) Notices of Federal Interest.14 

Based on the State’s cost documentation provided by OSPR, the NPFC finds that $9,819.16 in 

State response costs are compensable under OPA.15 Additionally, the NPFC was able to confirm 

the presence and oversight by the Claimant as the State On Schene Coordinator (SOSC) for this 

incident. 

Determined Amount:

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $9,819.16 as full compensation for 

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

E11908-0004. All costs claimed 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.

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/15/13 

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

12 See, Reports for Edward K. Boyes, Ben Thompson, Christian Corbo, and Corey Kong. 13 Operational Period From 2/24/11 13:00 TO: 3/3/11 13:00 14 Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Federal Interest Oil Discharge into Dominguez Channel dated 

February 22, 2011 and January 25, 2011.

15 See, NPFC Adjudication (spreadsheet)