1 

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Date : 9/22/2008 

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. (See Enclosure 1 – 

GDS Assessment report 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 

(b) (6)
2 

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. (See Enclosure 2 – USCG letter dated 

April 16, 2007). 

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). (See, Enclosure 3 – GDS Limited Survey Report of the SS Catala). 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;
3 

 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. (See Enclosure 4 – USCG Pollution Notification Message).

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 

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 
4 

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 
5 

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. Analysis: 
6 

NPFC CA reviewed the documentation provided by the claimant under cover dated 6 

February 2008. This claim submission is considered Season 2 of the SS Catala spill 

response therefore the information provided for in the Season 1 claim is mentioned 

under this analysis section due to the relevance of the Limited Survey that was 

performed early on. NPFC CA reviewed the documentation provided by the claimant 

under cover dated 20 July 2007. The information submitted entitled “Limited Survey 

Report of the SS Catala”, prepared by Global Diving and Salvage, Inc. provides 

extensive detailed information demonstrating that a significant amount of heavy oil was 

in the Forward Deep Oil Fuel Tank and the No. 1 Oil Fuel Tank of the SS Catala; a 

significant amount of contaminated sand was found above the No. 1 Oil Fuel Tank and 

the No. 2 Oil Fuel Tank along with evidence that the contamination was released 

through open hatches in the tank tops; perimeter boring and groundwater samples taken 

around the vessel indicated that very little oil has remained localized in the surrounding 

sediment thereby confirming oil releases had been occurring. When reviewing the soil 

boring and groundwater results performed, three of the twelve perimeter boring 

samples revealed (1) the sample taken directly above the No. 1 Oil Fuel Tank (HS-90) 

resulted in 95,000 ppm of oil whereby the target compliance level for the State is 500 

ppb; (2) the sample taken directly above the No. 2 Oil Fuel Tank (HS-115) resulted in 

6,100 ppm and (3) another sample taken directly above the No. 2 Oil Fuel Tank (HS125) resulted in 18,000 ppm. Clearly a substantial threat of discharge existed when 

considering some of the sample results combined with considerations for the vessel 

location buried at the waters edge in Damon Point, Ocean Shores, Washington and with 

the known environmental wildlife vulnerabilities that exist for that area combined with 

severe winter weather conditions.

Finally, it is important to note that the findings of the initial assessment performed by

Global at the request of the United States Coast Guard dated 14 April 2006, on page 

two, paragraph two, Global clearly references that what appeared to be product was 

observed around midships on the starboard side of the vessel against the hull in the sand 

and the product was 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 particular location appeared to 

hold water as water was running from the low spot in the hull. The Coast Guard 

authorized a patch to be constructed over the exposed oil tank although no action was 

taken to address the known product that was observed around midships. 

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 to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the 

costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

In accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), Sec. 300.305 states in part 

“.....(a) Defensive actions shall begin as soon as possible to prevent, minimize, or 

mitigate threat(s) to the public health or welfare of the United States or the 

environment. Actions may include but are not limited to: Analyzing water samples to 

determine the source and spread of the oil; controlling the source of discharge; 

measuring and sampling; source and spread control or salvage operations; placement of 

physical barriers to deter the spread of the oil and to protect natural resources and 

sensitive ecosystems; control of the water discharged from upstream impoundment; and 
7 

the use of chemicals and other materials in accordance with subpart J of this part to 

restrain the spread of the oil and mitigate its effects.” The actions performed by the 

claimant and the claimant’s contractors as described herein, clearly meet the 

requirements of the NCP.

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

$1,180,201.58 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# 907080-002. The 

claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by 

the claimant for this incident for the time period of May 2007 through August 2007. 

The NPFC has denied $2,010,624.89 in costs claimed as outlined below: 

1. Dept. of Printing invoices for May 2007 and July 2007 in the combined amount 

of $433.00 is denied as non-OPA compensable; 

2. PSC Invoice # 543469 - $6,185.52 is denied for work performed on 5/27/07 & 

5/28/07 (hull removal work) non-OPA compensable. At this point, all oil had 

been removed and no further threat of discharge existed; 

3. PSC Invoice # 551526 (part a) - $61,945.20 is denied for hull removal; nonOPA compensable. At this point, all oil had been removed and no further threat 

of discharge existed;

4. PSC Invoice # 549717 - $504,051.83 is denied for hull removal; non-OPA 

compensable. At this point, all oil had been removed and no further threat of 

discharge existed;

5. PSC Invoice # 544731 - $528,405.04 is denied for hull removal; non-OPA 

compensable. At this point, all oil had been removed and no further threat of 

discharge existed;

6. PSC Invoice # 551526 (part B) - $178,192.98 is denied because there were no 

supporting invoices, daily field notes, etc; 

7. PSC Invoice (# unknown) - $7,236.32 – is denied because there were no 

supporting invoices, daily field notes, etc;

8. PSC Invoice # 564365 - $250,641.85 is denied because the threat of oil 

discharged was abated therefore this work is not OPA compensable;

9. PSC Invoice # 568022 - $400,974.89 is denied because the threat of oil 

discharged was abated therefore this work is not OPA compensable;

10. State of Wash DOE indirect costs - $811.94 is denied as unsubstantiated; 

11. Fish & Wildlife Service - $1,910.05 is denied because there were no supporting 

invoices, daily field notes, etc; 

12. PSC Invoice (# unknown) - $69,590.65 is denied because there were no 

supporting invoices, daily field notes, etc; 

13. State of Wash DOE Lab Costs - $188.00 is denied because there were no 

supporting invoices, daily field notes, etc; 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF may pay $1,180,201.58 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 May 2007 through 
8 

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

presented by the claimant.

AMOUNT: $1,180,201.58 

Claim Supervisor: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/18/08 

Supervisor Action: Determination approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: