CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 3/23/2009 

Claim Number : 907080-002

Claimant : State of Washington

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $3,190,826.47 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On April 12, 2006, USCG Sector Portland Incident Management 

Personnel responded to the S/S Catala shipwreck located in Ocean Shores, Washington. 

This location is within the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) Sector Portland 

jurisdiction. The shipwreck is on shore and buried in approximately 10-30 feet of sand. 

The initial response by Coast Guard personnel to the shipwreck revealed a hole in the 

decking of the shipwreck exposing an oil tank containing an undetermined amount of 

heavy black oil. The vessel has been in its current location for a number of years and has 

not previously posed an emergent threat to the environment or navigation. 

Based on the information provided, the product was contained and the only apparent 

breach of the hull was through the hole made by a beachcomber and his walking stick. 

Coast Guard responders inspected the exterior of the hull and found no other indications 

of product discharge. Coast Guard responders recommended opening a Federal Project 

utilizing Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) money to hire a salvage contractor to 

conduct an examination and inspection of the hull using non-destructive methods to 

determine if the hull was intact under the sand. Global Diving and Salvage (GDS) was 

hired by Sector Portland to conduct the test and provide a report for FOSC review. The 

contractor completed its inspection and provided materials and labor to seal the hole 

caused by the beachcomber. 

After the hole was patched by the contractor, USCG Sector Portland determined that the 

incident no longer posed a substantial threat of discharge and ceased further response 

actions. Attached is a copy of Global Diving and Salvage’s assessment of the condition 

of the vessel, estimated volume of the void, and the feasibility of removal of the product. 

This report was provided to Sector Portland dated April 14, 2006. 

2. USCG’s determination not to perform further removal actions: When Global 

Diving performed the initial assessment as to the condition of the vessel at the request of 

Sector Portland, their findings and recommendations were as follows: 

Findings: The vessel was buried up to approximately the main deck level in sand. Most 

of the port and some of the starboard sides in the area of the shear was exposed. Various 

bulkheads, storage tanks, and piping are sticking out of the hull through the sand. Six 

transverse bulkheads were counted throughout the length of the vessel. The aft 

compartment is missing from the stern and may be buried aft and to the starboard side of 

the hull. It is unclear whether this missing compartment held the steering components. 

The steel of the hull and bulkheads appear to be degrading normally given the conditions 

in which it lies. Rust covers all surfaces and some evidence exists indicating 

delamination and leaching of the carbon from the steel. A Cygnus 1 Ultrasonic 
Thickness Gauge with a 2.25 MHz 1⁄2” remote probe #84465, calibrated February 9, 2006, 

was used to determine the thickness of the plating surrounding the void with the product. 

Measurements were taken both above and below the sand. Areas of average degradation 

were chosen for the measurement locations. Hull thickness above the sand level is -

.160”. Hull thickness below the sand level is - .140”.

What looked like product was observed around mid-ships on the starboard side against 

the hull in the sand, and leaching out of the inside of the hull through a low spot in the 

hull in the form of a light intermittent sheen. The hull in this location appeared to hold 

water as water was running from the low spot in the hull.

Recommendations for action: Global indicated they felt the best course of action to 

reduce the imminent threat to the environment would be to complete removal of the oil 

product from within the vessel. They further indicated there were two possible solutions 

for doing this: (1) In situ cleaning of the compartment containing the oil. The viscosity 

of the product would require it to be heated in order to pump it out and the compartment 

could then be properly cleaned. Further access to the compartment would have to be 

created in order to facilitate proper access. This option could also be accomplished by 

creating better access into the compartment and mechanically removing the product 

without heating it; (2) Removal of the tank completely from vessel. This option would 

require some excavation forward of the forward transverse bulkhead and cutting the hull 

to separate the tank from the rest of the vessel. It is important to note that these options 

only considered the compartment with the known product in it. Global further stated in 

their initial assessment that an investigative assessment was recommended to determine 

the existence and quantity of any other pollutants on board.

These findings and recommendations were provided to the USCG Sector Portland. Upon 

receipt of this report on or about April 14, 2006, Sector Portland made the determination 

that the substantial threat of discharge was abated with the installation of the patch and 

that no further response actions were warranted. 

3. The Claimant’s determination to have a limited survey done on the S/S Catala: On 

May 31, 2006 through June 1, 2006, Global Diving & Salvage, Inc. (GDS) completed a 

limited survey of the S/S Catala for the State of Washington Department of Ecology 

(claimant). The limited survey produced the following summarized results:

 That a significant amount of heavy oil was found in the Forward Deep Oil Fuel 

Tank and the No. 1 Oil Fuel Tank;

 That a significant amount of contaminated sand was found above the No. 1 Oil 

Fuel Tank and the No. 2 Oil Fuel Tank (it appeared as though the contamination 

was released through open hatches in the tank tops);

 Perimeter boring and groundwater samples around the vessel indicate that very 

little oil has remained localized in the surrounding sediment;

 That a significant amount of asbestos was found in the bulkhead insulation, 

wiring harnesses, and terrazzo flooring aboard the vessel at various locations;

 A computerized generated three dimensional model was created from what could 

be observed of the vessel and used to overlay tidal information as well as the 

findings of this report;

 The estimated tank capacities of the various Oil Fuel Tanks on board are as 

follows:

Fwd Deep O.F. Tank: 5,984-6,358 gallons

No. 1 O.F. Tank: 14,961-22,442 gallons

No. 2 O.F. Tank: 8,977-13,465 gallons
No. 3 O.F. Tank: 7,481-11,221 gallons

No. 4 O.F. Tank: 3,740-5,984 gallons

Total max. possible gallons at risk: 59,470 gallons

Based on the limited survey performed by GDS, the claimant decided that there was in 

fact in their opinion, a substantial threat of discharge to navigable waters. The claimant 

determined that a maximum spill potential of 59,470 gallons of oil existed vice to the 

original estimate of 500 gallons of black oil referenced by the USCG via MISLE Activity 

# 2627218.

4. Description of removal actions taken: The actions that were performed associated 

with this claim submission covered the time period of May 2007 through August 2007. 

Work included containment, removal of sand and water, pressure washing of residual oil 

products, sheet pile removal, and demobilization. The primary response contractor for 

this incident was Philips Services Corporation with Global Diving and Salvage, Inc. as a 

subcontractor. In summary, as of September 2007, the SS Catala was completely 

removed and the beach at Damon Point State Park near Ocean Shores, Washington was 

on its way to full restoration as a result of a 17-month multi-agency effort to protect this 

sensitive area from the threat of a major oil spill. By the end of August 2007, all of the 

oil, asbestos-containing materials, oil-contaminated sand, and the remaining hull of the 

SS Catala had been completely removed from the beach and sent offsite for recycling, 

treatment, or disposal.

Overall project accomplishments to date were:

 Heavy fuel oil removed and recycled = 34,500 gallons

 Oily water collected and transported offsite for treatment = 360,000 gallons

 Oil-contaminated sand removed and disposed = 2,585 tons

 Asbestos-containing materials removed and disposed = 33 cubic yards

 Scrap steel removed and sent for recycling = 345 tons

 Worker hours with no reportable injuries = 36,000 hours

 Amount of oil spilled as a result of site operations = none

 Total project cost for removing oil and restoring beach = $6.5M

 Cost of removing ship's hull = $0.5M

5. Initial Determination and Reconsideration Request: NPFC’s original determination 

of $1,180,201.58 was completed and emailed to the claimant on 18 November 2008, with 

disallowances for costs that were missing supporting documentation or unsubstantiated, 

costs that were determined to be non-OPA compensable, and some costs were denied 

because the claimant failed to meet their burden in substantiating costs.

The NPFC received the Claimant’s request for reconsideration letter on 14 January 2009 

via Federal Express. The Claimant’s assertions in support of reconsideration consist of 

the following:

1. Invoice # 551526(a) Philip Services in the amount of $62,001.27 for the period 

of 7/8/07 through 7/17/07, was for services related to gaining access to sections of 

the hull specifically to identify and to remove the remaining oil and oiled debris. 

Lab analysis confirms the presence of oil removed thereby substantiating the 

work as removal related vice salvage.

2. Invoice # 549717 Philip Services in the amount of $504,051.83 for the period 

of 5/31/07 through 7/7/07, was for operations to expose and manage the hull in 
order to gain access to the areas of the stern that had been previously unexposed

which were integral to the project’s purpose; between decks and tanks 3, 4, and 5.

3. Invoice # 544731 Philip Services in the amount of $524,405.04 which was for 

oil removal work on and within the hull which continued through June 28, 2007 

with the cleaning of the contaminated tanks.

4. Invoice # 55152(b) Philip Services in the amount of $178,192.98 was 

originally denied as no supporting documentation. The claimant provided a copy 

of the warrant issuing payment, the invoice, and all supporting documentation 

which shows removal actions for the time period of 7/8/07 through 7/17/07.

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]. 

Under 33 CFR 136.115(d), the Director, NPFC, will, upon written request of the claimant 

or the claimant's representative, reconsider any claim denied. This is a de novo review. 

The request for reconsideration must be in writing and include the factual or legal 

grounds for the relief requested, providing any additional support for the claim. The 

request for reconsideration must be received by the NPFC within 60 days after the date 

the denial was mailed to the claimant or within 30 days after receipt of the denial by the 

claimant, whichever date is earlier.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

 A. Findings:

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the 

Delegation of Authority for Determination of Consistency with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) for the payment of uncompensated removal cost claims 

under section 1012(a)(4), Oil Pollution Act of 1990. (See, Delegation of Authority 

from COMDT ltr 5402 of 19 March 1992).

2. The incident involved the substantial threat of discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 

90, 33 USC § 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. (See, NPFC Claim 

Form).

4. In accordance with 33 CFR §136.103(b)(3), presentation to the RP was not made 

preceding the submission of this claim to the NPFC, which is not required of state’s 

under OPA.

5. The claim was submitted on time.

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

with the claim. The NPFC finds that the efforts undertaken by the claimant meet the 

OPA definition of “removal” as defined in OPA which specifically states that “(30) 

‘remove’ or ‘removal’ means containment and removal of oil or a hazardous substance 
from water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to 

minimize or mitigate damage to the health or welfare, including but not limited to, fish 

shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines and beaches”. The 

NPFC has determined that all removal costs presented that include cleanup, trench 

work, vacuuming of gasoline and water, and disposal were actions in accordance with 

the NCP and the costs for these actions were reasonable, necessary, and allowable 

under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.

B. Reconsideration Analysis:

NPFC CA has reviewed the documentation provided by the claimant on reconsideration 

under cover dated 14 January 2009. The NPFC has performed a de novo review upon 

reconsideration. The NPFC has determined that the new arguments and documentation 

presented on reconsideration for invoice # 551526(a), 551526(b), 549717, and 544731 

provided by the claimant, is reasonable, appropriate under the circumstances, properly 

documented, and in the best interest of the spill response and workers on site. The 

NPFC has determined $2,448,796.63 is compensable under reconsideration. (See, 

Enclosure 1 – Summary of Vendors spreadsheet of costs).

The NPFC has carefully weighed all the evidence submitted by the claimant along with 

its new arguments in support of a total payment on reconsideration of $2,448,796.63 for 

response costs during the incident. In summary, the claimant provided that Season 2 

started with the mobilization on April 30, 2007, which was a continuation effort to gain 

entry into the stern tanks of the hull to which access had not yet been gained during 

Season 1’s response efforts. Season 2 was planned and executed as an integrated 

project in order to identify and remove the remaining oil from the environment. The 

overriding objective for the claimant, as executed by their contractors, was to safely 

access the deeply buried stern of the vessel, and collect and recover the remaining 

heavy fuel oil, oily water, and oil-contaminated sand and debris.

Global Diving & Salvage and Mason Construction worked primarily on the removal of 

the steel decks and side shells, manipulation of the buoyant hull within the four-sided 

steel wall contracted to serve as a containment and dewatering vault, and to aid in 

personal safety. Philip Services’ employees removed oil, contaminated water, sand and 

debris, and provided tank cleaning. The ability of Philip Services to conduct the 

removal of oil, etc., was predicated on the work performed by both Global Diving & 

Salvage and the work of Mason Construction in order to provide safe access to areas 

between the decks and inside the tanks.

During Season 2, an additional 1,170 gallons of heavy fuel oil were removed from the 

vessel hull that would have undoubtedly entered the environment without this 

containment and removal action. Following the cleaning of contaminated surfaces and 

the removal of sections of the hull for recycling, oil contamination was discovered in 

the sand in an area previously covered by the hull. The contaminated sand was 

excavated and disposed and sampling was conducted throughout the sheet pile cell in 

order to confirm that no additional oil contamination existed. Demobilization was 

completed.

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

$2,448,796.63 of uncompensated removal costs and that the 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 # 907080-002. The claimant states 

that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for 
this incident. 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 may pay $2,448,796.63 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and submitted 

to the NPFC under claim # 907080-002. All costs deemed compensable are for oil 

removal services provided by the claimant and its contractors from April 30, 2007 

through August 2007. These costs are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the claimant. 

AMOUNT: $2,448,796.63

Claim Supervisor: 

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

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Fax: 202-493-6937

5890

4/8/2009 

VIA EMAIL: 

@ecy.wa.gov

State of Washington 

ATTN: Mr. David Byers 

PO Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Re: Claim Number 907080-002

Dear Mr. David Byers: 

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

2701 et seq.), has determined that $2,448,796.63 is compensable for OPA claim number 907080-002. 

This reconsideration determination is based on an analysis of information submitted. 

All costs that are not determined to be compensable are denied. Disposition of this reconsideration 

constitutes final agency action. 

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

return to: 

 Director (ca) 

 U.S. Coast Guard 

 National Pollution Funds Center 

 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 

 Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

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, your payment will be mailed within 30 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 

Program Analyst 

ENCL: Claim Summary / Determination 

Acceptance/Release Form 

(1) Summary of Vendors spreadsheet of costs 
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

Claim Number: 907080-002 Claimant Name: State of Washington

 ATTN: Mr. David Byers

 PO Box 47600

 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

I, the undersigned, ACCEPT the determination of $2,448,796.63 as full compensation for all removal 

costs incurred by Claimant for services provided by the various vendors listed in the S/S Catala Season 2 

Summary of Vendors and Detailed Summary by Vendor (attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 

if fully set forth herein), and claimed to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) under Claim Number 

907080-002. 

This acceptance and the determination and offer on which it is based, is for the payment of 

uncompensated amounts claimed by the Claimant against the Fund under Claim Number 907080-002 and 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, at 33 U.S.C. § 2708, 2712 (a)(4) and 2713, and is a full and final release 

and satisfaction of the amounts so claimed. 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