THE ROLE OF ITOPF
IN
MAJOR OIL SPILL RESPONSES

Hugh D. Parker
Technical Team Manager (Americas)
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation∗(ITOPF )PAJ International Oil Spill Conference 2000
Response to Major Oil Spills
andImplementation of Effective Training
1st & 2nd March 2000, Tokyo, Japan∗

ITOPF Ltd. Staple Hall, Stonehouse Court, 87-90 Houndsditch LONDON EC3A 7AX
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
ITOPF Directors, Members and Associates.

INTRODUCTION
The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) was established
as a non-profit making organisation in 1968 for the principal purpose ofadministering the TOVALOP voluntary oil spill compensation agreement.
However, for more than 25 years ITOPF has also provided a broad range oftechnical and information services in the field of marine pollution. Since thetermination of TOVALOP in February 1997, the provision of these technicalservices has become ITOPF's sole function.
ITOPF regularly contributes to national and international discussions on
matters relating to marine pollution. Since 1980 it has had observer status atboth the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Oil
Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds).
This paper introduces ITOPF’s core activities and then considers the role of
ITOPF on site in a major spill in more detail.
MEMBERSHIPITOPF's Membership currently comprises over 4,000 tanker owners andbareboat charterers, who between them own or operate more than 8,000
tankers, barges and combination carriers with a total gross tonnage of some
189 million GT. This represents virtually all the world's oil and chemical tankvessel tonnage (including LNG and LPG carriers) and so it is exceedingly rarethat the owner of any such ship engaged in international trade is not a Memberof ITOPF.
With effect from 20th February 1999 the owners and bareboat charterers ofmost of the world's other types of ship became Associates of ITOPF. This now
allows them to call on ITOPF's technical services on a similar basis to thetanker owner Members. The introduction of Associate Status recognises
ITOPF's increasingly important role in responding to bunker spills from nontankers (about 25% of all spills attended by ITOPF staff over the past 10 years,
increasing to about 50% in the last eighteen months). There is also thelikelihood that in future, technical advice will be more frequently required inrelation to spills of hazardous and noxious substances.
ITOPF TECHNICAL AND INFORMATION SERVICES
Response to Marine Spills - ITOPF's highly experienced technical staff are atconstant readiness to respond to marine spills anywhere in the world. Thispriority service is normally performed at the request of a pollution insurer(usually one of the major P&I Clubs) on behalf of one of ITOPF’s Members or
Associates. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds)
also usually call on ITOPF's technical services for tanker spills with which they1are involved. Since the mid-1970s ITOPF staff have attended on-site at over
400 incidents in more than 80 countries.
In all cases ITOPF staff endeavour to co-operate and work closely with all theparties involved in a spill in order to try to reach agreement on response
measures that are technically justified in the particular circumstances. This
helps ensure that the clean-up is as effective as possible and that theminimum of damage is caused. As well as providing advice on technical issues,
ITOPF staff has extensive knowledge of the workings of the international
compensation Conventions and of the bodies that actually pay the compensation.
They are therefore also able to give guidance to potential claimants on issues
related to the admissibility of different classes of claims, as summarised in the
IOPC Funds' Claims Manuals. This can help facilitate the prompt and amicablesettlement of claims.
Damage Assessment and Claims Analysis - The objective assessment of thetechnical merits of claims for compensation is a natural extension of ITOPF's
on-site attendance at the time of the spill. It usually involves assessing thereasonableness of claims for clean-up costs and the merits of claims fordamage to economic resources. Adherence to the IOPC Funds' claims
admissibility guidelines and to other established principles helps ensure a
consistent approach irrespective of the location of the spill.
The assessment of claims for damage to fisheries - especially mariculture - isone area of ITOPF specialisation, which often requires the detailed analysis ofcomplex claims, frequently in conjunction with other specialists who haveparticular knowledge of the affected area and the economics of its fisheries.
ITOPF's advice is also regularly sought on environmental damage caused byspills and by shipping casualties in general. The organisation's technical staff
have been actively involved in a number of damage assessment studies aroundthe world conducted by independent scientists, as well as in specificrestoration projects.
ITOPF's role in damage assessment and claims analysis is limited to providing
objective advice on the technical merit of claims. The final decision on settling
any claim always rests with those who pay the compensation, usually a P&I
insurer and, in the case of tanker spills also the International Oil Pollution
Compensation Funds.
Contingency Planning and Advisory Work - A major oil spill will present thosein charge with numerous, complex problems, some of which will be nontechnical in nature. There is a greater likelihood that prompt and effective
response decisions will be made if considerable effort has been devoted inadvance of any spill to the preparation of comprehensive and realistic
contingency plans for different levels of risk. It is far better to try to resolve
difficult issues resulting from conflicting demands in 'peace time'. Despite2there being the common goal of cleaning up the oil as effectively as possible
with the minimum of damage to the environment and economic resources,
such issues are likely to escalate in the highly charged atmosphere following amajor spill.
Because of ITOPF's extensive practical involvement in spill response around theworld, it is often asked by governments, industry, international agencies andother organisations to advise on the preparation of contingency plans and also
to undertake other advisory assignments.
Training and Education - ITOPF organises and participates in numerous
training courses and seminars for government and industry personnel aroundthe world. It also frequently assists with oil spill exercises. Efforts are also
made to educate all interested groups on the practical problems of dealing withmajor marine oil spills and their impact on marine resources.
Information - ITOPF has devoted considerable effort over the years to producing
and disseminating practical information on oil spill response techniques.
Among its publications are twelve Technical Information Papers and a bookentitled, 'Response to Marine Oil Spills'. This book is available in English,
French, Spanish and Korean and, thanks to the generous initiative of thePetroleum Association of Japan (PAJ), it is also available in Japanese. ITOPF's
annual newsletter, Ocean Orbit, aims to keep Members and others around theworld up to date with developments. Copies of the 1999 issue of Ocean Orbit will
be available at the Seminar.
ITOPF maintains a comprehensive technical library, as well as a number of
databases, including one on the incidence of oil spills from tankers,
combination carriers and barges, and another on the availability of clean-up
equipment and materials at specific locations around the world.
The ITOPF Web site at http://www.itopf.com contains information on theorganisation and on various subjects connected with contingency planning, spill
response and compensation. It also has links with other useful Web sites. A
relatively recent addition to the Web site is ITOPF's series of Country Profiles,
which provide a brief overview of the spill response arrangements in about 160
coastal nations.
ITOPF TECHNICAL ADVISERS' RESPONSE TO MAJOR OIL SPILLSTechnical Advisers - There are nine Technical Advisers on standby 365 days ayear for response to ship-source oil spills. These members of staff all havescientific or technical, rather than seafaring backgrounds; chemists, marine
biologists and engineers. In addition, we have two Technical Support
Coordinators based in our office in London to support staff in the field. In a
major incident these support staff may also be deployed in the field. Their role3

is particularly concerned with the location, mobilisation and tracking of oil spill
response equipment.
The Technical Advisers are divided into three teams. The teams are led by Dr
Tosh Moller (Europe, Middle East and Africa), Dr Brian Dicks (Indian
Subcontinent, Far East and Australasia) and myself, Hugh Parker, (North andSouth America and the Caribbean). The team structure is not related to spill
response but is concerned with our internal management as well as
distributing responsibility for maintaining contacts with the spill response
community around the world. All members of each team are available to travel
anywhere in the world to respond to a spill.
Notification - Upon learning of an incident every effort is made to collect all
the information needed to evaluate its seriousness, usually while provisionalarrangements are being made to fly at least one member of the ITOPF technicalstaff to the country concerned. As well as basic information on the incident
itself, it will be vital to establish the type of oil involved and to predict its
probable movement, behaviour and fate in order to evaluate the risk tocoastlines and the likely impact of the spill on environmental and economic
resources. In addition, the organisation and resources available to respond to
the spill are reviewed and if necessary, an assessment made of the additional
equipment that might be brought in to supplement resources available in the
country concerned.
If this evaluation indicates that the oil will remain offshore where it will
dissipate and eventually degrade naturally, it may only be necessary, andindeed feasible, for both ITOPF and the responsible authorities to monitor the
movement and fate of the floating slicks to confirm the predictions. If, on theother hand, the evaluation of the spill suggests that the oil does pose a serious
threat to coastal resources, one or more members of the ITOPF technical staff
will travel to the site of the incident with minimum delay.
It is important that ITOPF is notified as early as possible after the incident has
occurred. We maintain an emergency telephone voice mail service which
activates a pager to notify the Technical Adviser on duty: +44 142 691 4221.
Information is received from Lloyds casualty services, the ship-ownerconcerned, the P&I Club, government agencies or a number of other sources.
ITOPF's early arrival onsite facilitates integration into the responseorganisation and provision of technical advice at the early stages of theincident when decisions made can affect the overall course of the response to
an incident.
ITOPF role onsite - The role of the ITOPF staff member at the site of a spill
varies according to the circumstances but is always advisory. Generally it willconsist of advising all parties on the most appropriate clean-up response, withthe aim of mitigating any damage to economic and environmental resources.

4

Staff have extensive first-hand experience of the effectiveness and potential
environmental impact of different techniques for at-sea response and forshoreline clean-up in different geographic and climatic regions of the world andfor different oils.
During the response to any spill the ITOPF staff member on site will monitor
clean-up operations and investigate any damage to coastal resources such as
fisheries and mariculture, and to the environment in general. This monitoringrole is important in relation to the later assessment of claims for compensation
on behalf of the shipowner, P&I insurer and, when appropriate, the IOPC Funds.
The ITOPF technical staff member will normally be assisted by the P&I
insurer’s local correspondent, as well as local surveyors. In some countries,
such as Japan, these correspondents and surveyors have considerable previous
oil spill experience. Depending upon the particular incident it may also benecessary for the P&I insurer and, when appropriate, the IOPC Funds to engage
other local or international experts to work alongside ITOPF staff to investigate
specific issues such as fisheries and tourism.
Advice on reasonable measures - One of ITOPF's key roles on site is to provide
technical advice to all parties on response measures that are likely to beconsidered ”reasonable” and therefore admissible for compensation under the
Civil Liability (CLC) and Fund Conventions (FC). While the test ofreasonableness is incorporated within these Conventions, it is not defined.
However, it is interpreted by the IOPC Fund Assembly to mean measures taken
which on the basis of a technical assessment made at the time were likely tobe successful in minimising damage both to the environment and to economic
resources. Measures taken for purely political or public relations purposes
which could be seen at the time to have no benefit in mitigating the effects ofthe spill are likely to be viewed as unreasonable. Even measures ordered orundertaken by government agencies are subject to the test of reasonablenessin order for the costs incurred to be reimbursed under the CLC and FC regimes.
ITOPF provides this advice at any spill but during a major incident this role isparticularly difficult because the demands of the public and the media exert
much greater pressures on all parties involved in the response. In particular,
this advice is often misinterpreted as having the intention of minimising costs
but as can be seen from the above definition of reasonable, there is no suchemphasis. ITOPF advice focuses on selecting and implementing response
measures, which can be technically justified in the particular circumstances,
presented by an incident. Some of the issues involved are discussed in moredetail below.
At sea response - The evidence from a number of major spills demonstrates that
operations to contain and recover oil at sea are extremely difficult and that it isunlikely that more than 10% of the quantity of oil spilled can be recovered. As
far as ITOPF is aware there has been only one notable exception, the5

V OLGENEFT 263 incident, (May 1990) in the Baltic Sea when all recoverable oilfrom a spill of 840 tonnes of waste oil was collected at sea by nine vessels fromdifferent Baltic nations. This was achieved with ideal weather conditions andwith vessels working under well rehearsed response arrangements.
In most cases efforts made to respond to oil at sea have had little benefit in
mitigating shoreline clean-up. In the recent ERIKA incident (December 1999) inFrance, an international response operation involving vessels from Germany,
Holland, Spain, UK and France reportedly recovered some 1,100 tonnes of the
16,000 tonnes of oil spilled. Despite this, the west coast of France suffered
severe contamination over some 400 km. In the SEA EMPRESS incident (February1996) in Wales, UK, vessels from UK, Holland and France recovered less than
2% of the quantity spilled. On the other hand, the aerial application ofdispersant during the SEA EMPRESS incident led to an estimated 60,000 to
110,000 tonnes of emulsified oil being prevented from reaching the shoreline.
While dispersants can therefore play a significant role in the rightcircumstances, on many other occasions dispersant use may have no benefit,
or worse may be both wasteful and harmful to the environment. For example,
dispersants are not effective in dispersing heavy fuel oils in cold water or on
heavily weathered oils. In the EVOIKOS incident (October 1997) in Singapore
dispersants were found to be ineffective on a spill of 29,000 tonnes of heavy fueloil after four days at sea. In such cases the viscosity of the oil is far too high toachieve any significant dispersion and so the use of dispersants would not berecommended as a reasonable response.
It is often argued that the cost/tonne of operations at sea is less than for
shoreline clean-up. However, as described above, it is usually inevitable that
despite all best efforts to respond to the spill at sea, the oil will reach theshoreline calling for a shoreline clean-up operation. The costs involved cannot
therefore be considered as either those of an at sea response or shoreline
clean-up but the cumulative costs of both.
The key factors in terms of shoreline clean-up are i) the length and ii) type ofshoreline affected:i) If we consider the clean-up of a length of oiled shoreline, for example, asandy beach of say 1 km, polluted with 10 tonnes of oil across a 5 metre swath,
this would represent an oil thickness of 2mm. A similar situation along thesame length of beach but with 20 tonnes of oil would result in an oil layer only
2mm thicker. Clearly, there would only be a marginal difference in effort andexpense to remove 10 tonnes rather than 20 tonnes of oil. On the other hand,removing 10 tonnes from two beaches each of 1km would result in twice asmuch work.
ii) The clean-up of different shoreline types presents varying degrees ofdifficulty, for example, the relative ease of cleaning a sand beach contrasts

6

strongly with the difficulties presented by cobble beaches or environmentallysensitive saltmarshes. Thus in order for a response at sea to be technicallyjustified it should present a high likelihood of significantly reducing the lengthof shoreline polluted or providing effective protection of shorelines which are
likely to be difficult to clean or environmentally sensitive.
Shoreline clean-up - The issues surrounding reasonable shoreline cleanup are
most often related firstly to the use of the most appropriate methodology for
different shoreline types and sensitivity and secondly, to the point when these
operations should be terminated. The expectation that every last trace of thespilled oil should be removed is obviously unrealistic. Not only could it never bephysically achieved but also the removal of every last drop is not necessary forthe restoration of the affected area to a state which allows the same "use" to bemade of the area as before the spill. The normal ”use” of the affectedenvironment can be considered in terms of the services provided by the affectedarea in terms of natural habitat, amenity use and economic exploitation.
In contrast to environmental concerns, amenity concerns focus primarily on theaesthetic appearance of the coastline and its availability for recreational use.
These concerns tend to drive clean-up measures to extremes, particularly atimportant tourist sites with the result that environmental considerations areoften overridden and aggressive clean-up techniques are used to produce thedesired results quickly. The desired level of cleanliness is to meet theperception that oil is no longer present, generally through the pragmatic test
that any oil remaining cannot be seen, smelled or felt on sand or solid surfaces.
Such an approach is usually restricted to the immediate area of high amenity
value during the tourist season. A much greater reliance is placed on naturalcleaning processes in more remote areas where there is no easy public access.
The assessment of four broad criteria provide a first approach to deciding whenclean-up operations should reasonably be brought to a close:§ Is the remaining oil a potential source of harm to environmentally sensitive
resources?
§ Does it interfere with the aesthetic appeal and amenity use of theshoreline?
§ Is this oil affecting economic resources detrimentally or disrupting economic
activities?
§ Do the benefits of further cleaning outweigh the environmental andeconomic costs?
With negative answers to these questions, the need for continued clean-up
must be open to question.
Other technical matters - Concerns about the potential economic impact of aspill arise due to uses made of the marine environment other than forrecreation, such as fishing and coastal industries. In the case of fishing, the7removal of bulk oil from the sea surface might be considered sufficient to allow
a fishery to be reopened. For shellfish and caged fish, it is the often
concentration of oil in the water column which is of more concern. Highconcentrations present a risk of toxic effects and even low levels may taint or
impart an oily flavour to the product. Some industries using seawater forcooling are able to tolerate quite high levels of oil in water without serious
effects, but other processes demand very high water quality, for example, theproduction of salt from seawater. One clear difficulty throughout all sectors is
the lack of guidelines in terms of the levels of hydrocarbon contamination thatcan be tolerated. This presents a particular difficulty when authorities shut
down production without having a clear idea of what criteria must be met inorder for the affected facility to be reopened.
Obviously issues such of these can have a very important impact on claims forbusiness interruption. In addition to monitoring the impact on these economic
resources, ITOPF Technical Advisers have to consider appropriate methods tomitigate the effects of the incident including providing advice on reasonable
criteria for re-starting production.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has to be recognised that national agencies responsible for the clean-up
operation have to achieve a delicate balance. A compromise has to be struck
between the expectations of the public, politicians and the media reflecting
concerns over the environment, the local economy and recreational resources,
against the limitations of available clean-up techniques, the level of cleaningthat is feasible and within the constraints of the costs of operation being
reasonable. While ITOPF provide one source of advice, they cannot work in
isolation and make their advice available to representatives of the national
authorities with the aim of reaching a consensus on issues such as the point at
which such operations risk being judged unreasonable.
For response at sea to be technically justified, ie. reasonable, it should offer arealistic chance of significantly reducing shoreline clean-up and minimising
the risk of further damages. In circumstances such as bad weather conditions,poor logistic support or where the oil has become too scattered, the merits ofsuch operations would be questionable. Most oil spill clean-up techniques havebeen in existence for two or three decades and experience has been built up
from their use in spills worldwide. As result it is usually possible to judge
whether or not a particular technique is appropriate and reasonable in given
circumstances. Ideally ITOPF advisers work closely with national authorities toevaluate the success of the operations and when it becomes clear that nofurther benefit can be derived, will recommend their termination on technicalgrounds.
The ITOPF Technical Adviser on site has to provide advice on a wide range oftechnical issues presented by the spill. These include advice on effective

8

cleaning techniques, monitoring effects and damages to environmental andeconomic resources and advising on appropriate measures to mitigate suchimpacts. Often an unrealistic expectation of what can be achieved can lead toactivities and expenditures that may not be considered reasonable and soinadmissible for compensation under CLC and FC regimes. The key role for the
ITOPF Technical Adviser is to bring an understanding of the realities of oil spill
response and to provide practical advice aimed at making the most effective useof the available resources and avoiding wasted effort and expense.
____________________________________ ² _____________________________________ITOPF PUBLICATIONS:T ECHNICAL I NFORMATION PAPERS 1-12 (1981-1986).
1 "Aerial Observation of Oil at Sea"
2 "Use of Booms in Combating Oil Pollution"
3 "Aerial Application of Oil Spill Dispersants"
4 "Use of Oil Spill Dispersants"
5 "Use of Skimmers in Combating Oil Pollution" 6 "Recognition of Oil on Shorelines"
7 "Shoreline Clean-up"
8 "Disposal of Oil and Debris"
9 "Contingency Planning for Oil Spills"
10 "The Effects of Marine Oil Spills"
11 "Fate of Marine Oil Spills"
12 "Action: Oil Spill""RESPONSE TO M ARINE OIL SPILLS", pub. Witherby & Co. Ltd., London (1987), ISBN O 948691 51 4.
- Available in English, French and Spanish (also in Japanese and Korean from other sources).
"THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL OIL INDUSTRY SPILL RESPONSE RESOURCES: TIER 3 CENTRES",- A Joint ITOPF/IPIECA briefing paper (1999).
"OCEAN ORBIT " - ITOPF’s Annual Newsletter.
“THE REAL STORY - THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE BRAER”,- A video produced by The Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen and available from ITOPF.

9