Claim Number 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Claim Manager 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

913006-000 I 

State of California 

State 

Removal Costs 

$14,163.80 

Oil Spill Incident: On January 13, 2009 a biologist working for Tejon Ranch, CA 

discovered a spill of drilling mud and oil in Tejon Creek. The location of the spill was 

within the petroleum leasehold with Longbow, LLC. The Director of Regulatory 

Compliance Planning and Entitlements with Tejon Ranch notified California State 

Officials on January 22, 2009 about the discovery. 

The delay in making official notification, to California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), concerning the spill was that Tejon Ranch was attempting to determine the 

cause and origin of the material as well as it chemical composition so that appropriate 

clean-up and disposal could be coordinated. 1 

Description of Removal Activities for tit is Claimant: On January 23, 2009 Tejon Ranch 

removed the material from the creek and placed the material in storage bins.2 The claim 

package does not contain any further information on when and how the contaminated 

material was disposed of. 

During the response and investigation into the spill the CDFG collected the following 

product samples and had them chemically analyzed at the CDFG Water Pollution Control 

Laboratory: 

Sample Date Samples taken from Results 

January 29, 2009J Drilling mud and soil from bins numbered Petroleum hydrocarbons were 

57 14, 5959, 583 1, and 5730; confirmed in all samples and 

Longbow we l I numbers 14, 15, 16, and 17; were consistent with a common 

Two samples collected by Te jon Ranch. source. 

March 17, 20094 Eight various locations upstream of the Only one of the samples was 

spill location found to contain petrole um 

hydrocarbons. When compared 

to a sample taken on 1/29/2009 it 

was found not to be consistent. 

May 29, 2009' She1man Havens well number 42 and E&B Petroleum hydrocarbons were 

Resources Mgmt. Corp. well number 46-2. confirmed in both samples. 

When compared to samples taken 

on 1 /29/2009 they are not 

consistent with a common 

source. 

1 Email date January 22, 2009 from (Tejon Ranch) to and (CDFG) 2 CDFG Arrest I Investigation Report July 9, 2012. 3 CDFG Water Pollution Control Laboratory Report Number L-060-09, dated February 19, 2009. 4 CDFG Water Pollution Control Laboratory Report Number L-146-09. dated April 9, 2009. 5 CDFG Water Pollution Control Laboratory Report Number L-298-09, dated June 12, 2009. 
L 

., 

The Claim: On October 17, 20 12, State of California presented a removal cost claim to 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of$14, 6~.80. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible paiiies 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 incuned by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan". 33 USC§ 2702(b)(l)(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 (OSL TF), 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 ai·e determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan and 

uncompensated damages. Removal costs are defined as "the costs of removal that are 

incuned 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 §27 l 3(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. §27 13(d) provides that "If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, sho1i-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.lOS(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 dete1mination. 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 incun-ed 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. Overview: 

1. No FOSC coordination has been provided by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) in accordance with CFR § 136.203. 

2. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate how the spill posed a substantial threat of 

discharge to a navigable waterway. 

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. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations for removal 

costs. 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were not for 

actions in accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were not 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

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

had incuned 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 incuned 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 Claimant has provided documentation that a petroleum contaminated material 

was discharged into the Tejon Creek but has failed to demonstrate how this incident 

posed a substantial threat of discharge to a navigable waterway. Based on the 

evidence6 provided in the claims package, the Tejon Creek is a dry creek and had no 

water flowing in it at the time of the spill. Additionally, there is no evidence that this 

dry creek is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The NPFC Claims Manager (CM) 

was unable to find a downstream tributary that the Tejon Creek flowed into and that 

the creek appeared to disperse at the valley floor. 

The Claimant did not obtain FOSC coordination for this incident and as such, the 

Claimant has failed to meet their burden pursuant to the governing claims regulations 

found at 33 CFR 136.203 and 136.205 to demonstrate that any actions undertaken by 

them were determined by the FOSC to be reasonable, necessary and consistent with 

the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

6 Pictures provided of the spill site and supplied Goog le terrain image. 
C. Determined Amount: 

Based upon the foregoing, the NPFC denies this claim because the Claimant has 

failed to demonstrate that the spill posed a substantial threat of discharge into or upon 

a navigable waterway and because ho FOSC coordination was obtained from the 

Federal on Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to ensure the response was conducted in 

accordance with the National Contingency Plan. 

AAf OUNT: S0.00 

Claim Superviso1

Date of Supervisor's Review: 11114112 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved 

Supervisor's Comments: