CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 3/24/2009 

Claim Number : 908102-002

Claimant : State of Connecticut 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $210,929.77

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On May 25, 2007, the claimant, Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (CT DEP) was notified of a gasoline odor in the vicinity of Main 

Street in Terryville, CT and was requested to respond by the local Fire Department. Connecticut 

DEP responded to the scene and the source of the gasoline odor was identified by the Fire Dept. 

Connecticut DEP reported the incident to the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 

836537. It was observed and reported that gasoline was breaking out of the riverbank from an 

adjacent property identified as Mayfair Garage, 142 Main Street, Terryville, CT. The source 

location was confirmed by representatives of Connecticut DEP. Connecticut DEP approached 

the property and conducted a site investigation. As a result of the investigation, it was found that 

gasoline was observed under the dispensers at the full service island. The submersible sump 

pump pit for the regular system was observed to have product in it. When the cover was 

removed, the pit was full. The owner of the garage was immediately directed to shut down the 

system. 

 The owner was advised that a spill contractor would have to be retained to contain the 

gasoline in the river and to evacuate the dispenser sumps and submersible sump. Clean Harbors, 

Inc. was retained by the owner and responded to the incident. Boom was deployed in the river 

and sumps were evacuated. Approximately 165 gallons of gasoline were recovered from the 

sumps. On May 30, 2007, Smith & LaMountain, Inc., a pump and tank company was retained 

by the owner of the garage and on site to determine the cause of the leak. It was found that the 

supply line from the regular system that was coming off the submersible sump pump was leaking 

at a coupling. Upon further investigation, it was observed that an ‘O’ ring gasket was faulty. 

When the pump was turned on, the leak was visible. The technician with Smith & LaMountain, 

Inc. stated that the leak was in excess of 9 gallons per hour and therefore he classified it as a 

significant leak. Clean Harbors arrived on site and changed out the sorbents in the river. 

 On June 1, 2007, Clean Harbors, Inc. installed a recovery trench and well. Product was 

observed during the excavation process. The monitoring wells in the tank grave area were 

sampled and found to have product in them also. One well had approximately 9” of product in it 

and the other well had approximately 12” of product in it. To date, the total amount of product 

recovered from the wells was approximately 1,600 gallons. On June 5, 2007, Connecticut DEP 

was on site geoprobing to determine the extent of oil contamination at the site location. The case 

remains under the direction of the Emergency Response Unit of CT DEP. On June 6, 2007, 

Connecticut DEP had installed 11 monitoring wells with the well on the southern side of the 

property, closest to RT. 6, showing approximately 2.5’ of product in it. Clean Harbors has 

recovered approximately 2,400 gallons of product from the underground storage tank monitoring 

wells and the dispenser sumps. 
 On June 8, 2007, Connecticut DEP geoprobed across the street from the incident location 

on RT.6, in front of Grella Well Drilling, where three wells were installed. No indication of 

product was found in those wells. On June 11, 2007, a site meeting was held at the incident 

location. Present at the meeting were Connecticut DEP reps, the supervisor for Clean Harbors, 

and the owner of the site. Subsurface recovery and installation was discussed at this meeting. 

Mr. , owner of the site, was advised that the second phase of recovery would 

proceed and he was asked if he was committed to his financial responsibility. He then requested 

a proposal of costs from Clean Harbors and once that was given, he would decide if he was 

financially committed. On June 13, 2007, Mr. advised Connecticut DEP that he 

would not accept financial responsibility in order to proceed with the cleanup. 

 At this point, the claimant, Connecticut DEP, assumed financial responsibility for the 

cleanup and hired their contractor to handle the on-going response. Connecticut Tank Removal 

(CT Tank) was notified at approximately 1615 hrs on June 13, 2007 and the contractor was 

requested to be on site on June 14, 2007 at 0900 by the claimant. On June 14, 2007, CT Tank 

arrived on site and began immediate response work which consisted of pumping out the 18” 

recovery well with a vac truck and discussions of the installation of a recovery system began. 

 On June 18, 2007, Mr. of Connecticut DEP contacted Mr. of 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Federal On Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC) for the incident location and advised that they were taking over the response activities at 

the site location because the responsible party has stated that he could no longer fund cleanup 

costs. Later, at the request of FOSC , Mr. of USEPA contacted the claimant on 

June 19, 2007 to further coordinate the cleanup activities at the site. Connecticut DEP informed 

the FOSC that the release occurred from the supply line of an underground storage tank which 

migrated into the ground and subsequently into the abutting Pequabuck River, a navigable 

waterway of the US. 

 The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) notified the responsible party, Mr. 

r via a letter dated March 19, 2009, advising Mr. that a claim has been submitted for 

reimbursement and to provide any circumstances, explanations, or justifications he wants 

considered before the adjudication is completed. To date, the responsible party has not 

responded to the notification letter. 

2. Description of removal activities: On June 13, 2007, CT Tank was hired as the 

primary contractor for Connecticut DEP to handle the response activities associated with this 

incident. The contractor’s response activities include but are not limited to, vacuuming 

monitoring wells, performing sample analysis, operation of a portable system to pump and treat 

contaminated water that continues to threaten the Pequabuck River, a navigable waterway of the 

US, maintain boom as needed, perform proper disposal when necessary, and inspect the system 

periodically. This claim submission is for the second phase of this response and covers the 

period of January 1, 2008 through September 4, 2008. 

 3. The Claim: On February 2, 2009, Connecticut DEP submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

costs in the amount of $210,929.77 for the services provided to Mr. , owner of 

Mayfair Garage from January 1, 2008 through September 4, 2008. This claim is for removal 

costs based on the contracted rate schedule in place with Connecticut DEP at the time services 

were provided. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, disposal manifests, 

contracted rate schedules, Connecticut DEP Spill Summary Report, NRC report, sample analysis 
and associated results and EPA FOSC coordination. The review of the actual cost invoicing and 

dailies 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 

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. 

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. Overview: 

1. The FOSC has provided FOSC coordination. A coordination statement has been provided via 

email dated March 19, 2009 from Mr. . (See, Enclosure 1). 

2. The incident involved the discharge and continuing substantial threat of 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. The claim was submitted on time. 

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made on November 28, 2007, prior to the submission of 

the claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP on March 19, 2009. 

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

claim and determined that the majority of all 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 with the exception of the following: (See, 

Enclosure 2 – Summary of Vendors)

a. United Industrial Service invoice # 322077, on 2/27/08, deny $667.30 as FOSC states 

that the work performed was not within the time period of response; 

b. United Industrial Service invoice # 322819, on 2/29/08, deny $852.60 as FOSC states 

the work performed was not within the time period of response; 

c. United Industrial Services invoice # 317041, on 11/30/07, deny $318.10 as FOSC 

states the work performed was not within the time period of response; 

d. CT Tank invoice # 111977, on 2/5/08, deny $119.00 as improper labor category was 

billed –operator should have been a technician; on 2/11/08, deny $126.00 as improper 

labor category was billed –operator should have been a technician; on 2/27/08, deny 

$126.00 as improper labor category was billed –operator should have been a technician; 

e. CT Tank invoice # 112119, on 3/19/08, deny $206.50 x 3 for and 

 were billed improperly as operators when they should have been billed as 

technicians; on 3/20/08, deny $63.00 as improper labor category was billed – operator 
should have been a technician; on 3/21/08, deny $91.00 as improper labor category was 

billed – operator should have been a technician; 

f. CT Tank invoice # 112579, on 7/3/08, deny $119.00 as improper labor category billed 

– operator should have been a technician; 

g. CT Tank invoice # 112393, on 5/8/08, deny $63.00 as improper labor category billed 

– operator should have been a technician; 

h. CT Tank invoice # 112219, on 4/2/08, deny $98.00 as improper labor category billed 

– operator should have been a technician; 

i. CT Tank invoice # 112777, on 9/4/08, deny $112.00 as improper labor category billed 

– operator should have been a technician; 

j. Ct Tank invoice # 111851, on 1/11/08 - $92.00 as improper labor category billed - 

Operator should have been Tech; on 1/23/08 - $84.00 as improper labor category billed - 

Operator should have been Tech; on 1/28/08 - $35.00 as improper labor category billed - 

Operator should have been Tech; on 1/22/08 - $70.00 as improper labor category billed - 

Operator should have been Tech; on 1/22/08 - $269.50 as improper labor category billed 

for - Operator should have been Tech; on 1/22/08 - $164.00 as improper 

labor category billed for - Operator should have been Tech; on 1/22/08 - 

$630.04 improper charge for utility truck - equipment was not on site 

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. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact 

incur $206,077.23 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable 

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

claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim# 908102-002. The claimant states that all 

costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident 

for the time period of, January 1, 2008 through September 4, 2008. The claimant represents 

that all costs paid by the claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as 

presented by the claimant. 

During the adjudication process and prior to the actual claim submission, the Claims 

Manager worked with the claimant and the EPA FOSC in order to discuss the actions 

performed since the EPA FOSC never actually went to the spill location but rather was kept 

informed verbally as the response continued. Prior to the claim being officially submitted to 

the NPFC, the claimant sent a full claim package to the EPA FOSC for review of the actions 

and services rendered. The EPA FOSC spoke with the Claims Manager on several occasions 

and advised that he concurs that the long term response actions associated with the operation 

and maintenance of the treatment system that was installed, was in fact necessary to mitigate 

the ongoing threat of contamination to the nearby waterway. 
The Claims Manager and the EPA FOSC has determined that the long term operation 

and maintenance of the temporary treatment system that is currently in place is reasonable 

and necessary to continue mitigating the substantial threat. The claimant has substantiated 

the need for the ongoing response action by way of sample analysis which demonstrates the 

continuing presence of oil at an actionable level. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $206,077.23 as full compensation 

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

claim # 908102-002. 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. 

AMOUNT: $206,077.23

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: