CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 1/25/2010 

Claim Number : 908102-003

Claimant : State of Connecticut 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $11,022.93

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. Frank Fuller, 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. Frank Fuller 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. Capuano of Connecticut DEP contacted Mr. Mike Nalipinski 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 Nalipinski, Mr. Chau 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. Frank 

Fuller via a letter dated December 9, 2009, advising Mr. Fuller 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 January 12, 2009, Leggette Brashears and 

Graham (LBG) was hired by Connecticut DEP to handle the ongoing response activities 

associated with this incident. The contractor’s response activities include but are not limited to,

monitoring separate phase product and to pump product from the wells; CT Tank was also hired 

as a subcontractor to pump product out of the monitoring wells during the time period of 

February 9, 2009; LBG was back on site on February 18, 2009, to monitor the product in the 

wells; On February 27, 2009, Seaboard Drilling was on site to construct recovery wells; on 

February 26, 2009, LBG was on site for recovery well abandonment while CT Tank was on site 

to remove the recovery well vaults. Between the dates of March 12 – 24, 2009, LBG was on site 

monitoring the product in the wells and CT Tank was on site pumping product from the wells. 

This claim submission is for the third and final phase of this response and covers the period of 

January 12, 2009 through March 24, 2009.

3. The Claim: On November 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 $11,022.93 for the services provided to Mr. Frank Fuller, owner of 

Mayfair Garage from January 12, 2009 through March 24, 2009. 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 Chronology of 2009 Events at the spill location, 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 January 15, 2010 from Mr. Tom Condon. (See, Enclosure 1).

2. The incident involved the 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. The claimant is exempt by regulation to make presentment to the RP. The NPFC made 

presentment of costs to the RP on December 9, 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 – EPA email dated January 15, 2010 which identifies $612.50 in denied contract 

costs by the FOSC)

- Invoice # 2902454

- $156.25 denied for costs associated with Task #2 – product pump out

- $31.25 denied for costs associated with Task #3 – abandon and replace recovery wells

- $56.25 denied for costs associated with Task #4 – project coordination and reporting

- Invoice # 2903233

- $231.25 denied costs associated with Task #4 – project coordination and reporting

- Invoice # 2904383

- $137.50 denied costs for project coordination and reporting
AMOUNT: $10,410.43

Claim Supervisor: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: 
U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

United States Coast Guard

National Pollution Funds Center

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Fax: 202-493-6937

5890

1/25/2010 

VIA EMAIL: @ct.gov 

State of Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Re: Claim Number 908102-003 

 

Dear Mr. Gunning: 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 

2701 et seq.), has determined that $10,410.43 is full compensation for OPA claim number 908102-003. 

This determination is based on an analysis of the information submitted. Please see the attached 

determination for further details regarding the rational for this decision. 

All costs that are not determined as compensable are considered denied. You may make a written request 

for reconsideration of this claim. The reconsideration must be received by the NPFC within 60 days of 

the date of this letter and must include the factual or legal basis of the request for reconsideration, 

providing any additional support for the claims. Reconsideration will be based upon the information 

provided and a claim may be reconsidered only once. Disposition of the reconsideration will constitute 

final agency action. Failure of the NPFC to issue a written decision within 90 days after receipt of a 

timely request for reconsideration shall, at the option of the claimant, be deemed final agency action. All 

correspondence should include corresponding claim number. 

Mail reconsideration request to: 

 Director (ca) 

 NPFC CA MS 7100 

 US COAST GUARD 

 4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000 

 Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

If you accept this determination, please sign the enclosed Acceptance/Release Form where indicated and 

return to the above address. 

If we do not receive the signed original Acceptance/Release Form within 60 days of the date of this letter, 

the determination is void. If the determination is accepted, an original signature and a valid tax 

identification number (EIN or SSN) are required for payment. If you are a Claimant that has submitted 

other claims to the National Pollution Funds Center, you are required to have a valid Central Contractor 

Registration (CCR) record prior to payment. If you do not, you may register free of charge at 

www.ccr.gov. Your payment will be mailed or electronically deposited in your account within 60 days of 

receipt of the Release Form.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter, you may contact me at the above address or 

by phone at 

Sincerely, 

Donna Hellberg 

Claims Manager 

ENCL: Claim Summary / Determination Form 

Acceptance/Release Form 
U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

United States Coast Guard

National Pollution Funds Center

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 

E-mail: il

Fax: 202-493-6937

Claim Number: 908102-003 Claimant Name: State of Connecticut

 Department of Environmental Protection

 79 Elm Street

 Hartford, CT 06106-5127

 

 

 

I, the undersigned, ACCEPT the determination of $10,410.43 as full compensation for the removal costs incurred. 

This determination represents full and final release and satisfaction of all removal costs incurred under the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(4), associated with the above referenced claim. This determination is not an admission of liability by 

any party. I hereby assign, transfer, and subrogate to the United States all rights, claims, interest and rights of action, that I may 

have against any party, person, firm or corporation that may be liable for the loss. I authorize the United States to sue, 

compromise or settle in my name and the United States fully substituted for me and subrogated to all of my rights arising from 

the incident. I warrant that no legal action has been brought regarding this matter and no settlement has been or will be made by 

me or any person on my behalf with any other party for costs which are the subject of the claim against the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (Fund). 

I, the undersigned, agree that, upon acceptance of any compensation from the Fund, I will cooperate fully with the United States 

in any claim and/or action by the United States against any person or party to recover the compensation. The cooperation shall 

include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund any compensation received from any other source for the same 

claim, providing any documentation, evidence, testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the United States to recover 

from any other person or party. 

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information contained in this claim represents all 

material facts and is true. I understand that misrepresentation of facts is subject to prosecution under federal law (including, but 

not limited to 18 U.S.C. 287 and 1001).

Title of Person Signing Date of Signature 

Typed or Printed Name of Claimant or Name of Signature 

Authorized Representative

Title of Witness Date of Signature 

Typed or Printed Name of Witness Signature 

 DUNS Bank Routing Number Bank Account Number