CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 3/5/2009 

Claim Number : 909065-001

Claimant : State of Connecticut 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $3,195.39 

FACTS: 

 1. Oil Spill Incident: On November 30, 2007 at approximately 1433, Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection’s (CT DEP) Response Officer was dispatched to 

Penny Avenue in Trumbull. The Trumbull Fire Department (TFD) reported the release 

of motor fluids and fire suppression foam from a commercially owned garbage truck 

located at the referenced location. Once CT DEP arrived on site, the Response Officer 

was met by the Trumbull Center Fire Chief and Fire Marshal 

 The Fire Marshal advised that the Trumbull Fire Department technicians had 

extinguished the fire in the cab portion of the truck and were opening the storage area in 

order to address the fire there. He also informed CT DEP that Associated Carting of 990 

Naugatuck Avenue in Milford, CT owned the garbage truck and that a representative was 

on site. Based on the information provided, CT DEP assessed the release and observed 

that two down gradient catch basins had been impacted by the motor fluids and fire 

suppression foam. Based on his findings, CT DEP met with Mr. of 

Associated Carting (responsible party). CT DEP informed him of the findings and 

requested that he retain the services of a licensed environmental contractor to address the 

oil release. The responsible party later informed CT DEP that they had retained the 

services of Connecticut Tank Removal (CTR). 

 By the time CTR arrived on site, the President of Associated Carting, Mr. had 

also arrived on scene. CTR met with Mr. in order to secure a deposit at which 

time the responsible party informed the contractor, CTR that he had no financial way or 

means to secure a deposit prior to the cleanup therefore CTR refused to perform the 

cleanup under those circumstances. Ultimately, the responsible party requested the 

assistance of CT DEP to hire a contractor and handle the cleanup as he did not have the 

financial means to do so. CT DEP then retained CTR to handle the response for them. 

The incident was called into the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 856087. 

 CT DEP was contacted by the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Mr. , who authorized CT DEP 

to take the lead to handle the cleanup and he advised the intended cleanup was acceptable 

as consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The claimant presented costs to 

the responsible party on August 1, 2008 and to date has not received payment. 

2. Description of removal actions: CTR deployed boom and absorbents as well as 

activated their vac truck in order to remove any and all free floating oil. After cleanup 

was concluded, CTR properly disposed of all liquids and solids. 
3. The Claim: On February 2, 2009, CT DEP submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

removal costs in the amount of $3,195.39. The claim submission consisted of: invoices, 

daily field logs, disposal manifests, proof of payment, proof of presentment to the 

responsible party, a copy of the NRC report, a copy of the FOSC coordination log entry 

as provided by the EPA FOSC, and the contractor rate schedule.

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, Mr. , from USEPA coordinated response actions with the claimant 

and verified via a log entry dated 12/7/07. 

2. The incident involved the 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 August 1, 2007, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP. 

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

claim and determined that the 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. 

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 

$3,195.39 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# 909065-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant. The claimant represents that 

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

presented by the claimant. 
C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $3,195.39 as full compensation for 

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

claim # 909065-001. 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: $3,195.39

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: