AMPERA - Centre d'InvestigaciÃ³ i Desenvolupament - CID

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 

Contract No. ERAC-CT2005-016165 

ERA-NET 

to foster prevention and best response to Accidental Marine Pollution 

 

COORDINATION ACTION 

Deliverable D 3.4.1 

Report of workshop held as emergency response activity phase 1 

Due date: June 2007 

Actual submission date: June, 2007 

Start of the project: April 2005 

Duration: 4 years 

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: 

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK) 

Prepared by Robin Law, Mark Kirby, Suzanne Painting (Cefas, UK) and 

Jamie Rendell (Defra, UK) 

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) 

Dissemination level 

PU Public XX 

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) 

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) 

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 

1

Table of Contents 

Page 

1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………. 3 

2. Background to Workshop……………………………………………. 4 

3. General Workshop Objectives……………………………………….. 4 

4. Specific Workshop Objectives ………………………………………. 5 

5. Workshop Proceedings – see Appendix 1 and 2……………………… 6 

6. Key Points arising from Discussions…………………………………. 13 

7. Conclusions…………………………………………………………… 14 

8. Appendix 1: Agenda…………………………………………………… 15 

9. Appendix 2: Background Information - Speakers and Institutions/…… 18 

Organisations 

2

1. Executive Summary 

An AMPERA Workshop was held in Southampton, UK on the 18 th and 19 th April 2007. 

The Workshop was part of the training programme under Work Package 3 (Task 3.4). 

The objectives of the Workshop were (1) to provide a forum where policy developers 

and scientists from European coastal countries could exchange protocols for responding 

to accidental marine pollution, and ideas about the balance and scope of AMPERA 

research, (2) to discuss best practice in preparedness for responding to incidents of 

accidental marine pollution, and (3) to discuss future needs for research and 

development, particularly in terms of contingency planning and policy requirements. 

The Workshop was attended by 31 delegates representing the 8 AMPERA partners: 

Spain, Portugal, France, Estonia, Norway, Belgium, Ireland and the UK. Delegates from 

each member state gave a presentation on the emergency response approaches adopted 

by their respective countries, based on one or more of the 7 main themes: Contingency 

Planning; Identifying and Mapping Sensitive Resources; Identifying Response Options; 

Preparing to use Dispersants; Protecting the Human Food Chain; Monitoring and 

Environmental Impacts; Waste Management. In total, 19 presentations were given, 

forming the basis of detailed discussion. 

From the presentations it was clear that each member state has developed its own 

strategy for emergency response to accidental marine pollution, based on national issues 

and risks. Some case studies were presented, most of which focussed on shipping 

incidents in coastal waters of the member states (e.g. The Prestige, Portugal; Ievoli Sun 

and Ece, France; Runner 4, Gulf of Finland: the Napoli, UK). It was apparent that one 

of the future challenges will be to respond to such incidents in international waters. 

Strategies developed by all the member states provided many examples of good 

practice. A number of key priorities were highlighted, including: 

1. the need for detailed planning for pollution incidents of different levels of 

severity; 

2. the need for rapid availability of information after each incident (pollutant 

types, volumes, etc); 

3. the need for a rapid robust assessment of environmental risks posed by each 

incident; 

4. protocols for waste management 

5. the need for further research and development to meet the needs of 1, 2 and 3 

(above) 

Presentations on the assessment of environmental risks demonstrated the different 

approaches which may be adopted, including sensitivity mapping, modelling and 

monitoring. A number of the presentations identified the scientific or research needs for 

improving these assessments. Many of these were summarised by Thierry Jacques 

(Belgium): “Carrying out a sound environmental evaluation in real time remains a 

scientific challenge, for several reasons. In spite of the availability of numerous 

modelling tools to predict the short-term ecological impact of a spill, enormous gaps of 

knowledge persist: these concern the behaviour of the pollutant (be it heavy fuel or 

unfamiliar harmful and noxious chemical substances, HNS); its toxicity to marine 

invertebrates; the toxicity of degradation products; secondary effects relating to the 

3

ecological interactions of impacted populations; and the long-term effects of persistent 

fractions both locally and through the food web. Whereas sensitivity mapping is a 

standard assessment tool in inshore environments, the technique becomes approximate 

and largely unreliable in the open sea: not only is the sensitivity of the seabed 

community difficult to determine, but the calculation of the exposure time of that 

community to effectual pollutant concentrations remains difficult. This all makes 

impact modelling ineffective or unreliable, except for the most obvious drift and 

dispersion components. The basic problem faced by the scientific adviser in a spill 

situation thus amounts to understanding enough of the relevant processes to be able to 

draw a mass balance of the spilled substance, locate the targets of each fraction, assess 

the vulnerability and sensitivity of these targets, predict losses, and then playing with 

the model (whether mental or computer) to test available options. How these various 

questions can be turned into useful research projects for the improvement of predicting 

tools and remedial measures should be the central concern of AMPERA.” 

In general, the Workshop provided a good opportunity for partners to exchange 

information about their respective approaches. With the large number of presentations, 

there was relatively little time to discuss best practice for preparedness and response, or 

future needs for research and development. There remains a need for ‘working groups’ 

to be formed to address the key issues facing accidental marine pollution in Europe. The 

Phase 2 Workshop will provide the opportunity to build on this Workshop, to fully meet 

the objectives of Work Package 3. 

2. Background to Workshop: Emergency response activity phase 1 

Within the AMPERA work programme, the objective of Work Package 3 is to 

implement joint strategies to foster knowledge and technology transfer. The intention is 

to improve linkages between research and the prevention and mitigation of accidental 

marine pollution. The objective of Task 3.4 is to design a joint training activity, to 

provide a forum where policy developers and scientists from European coastal countries 

can exchange ideas and protocols, and develop the potential for the sharing of facilities 

(such as analytical laboratories) in the event of a pollution incident. This activity 

incorporates two planned activities (Phases 1 and 2) separated by one year. The first of 

these, a Workshop entitled “Best Practice in Accidental Marine Pollution Response” 

was held in Southampton, UK, on 18 and 19 April 2007. 

3. General Workshop Objectives 

The ‘Best Practice In Accidental Marine Pollution Response Workshop’ is the first of 

two training activities designed to promote and share best practice. 

This initial phase will involve a series of presentations and activities designed to 

promote a better understanding of current response activities to accidental marine 

pollution, utilising a variety of accidental marine pollution scenarios. 

Where countries include practical response as a component of their emergency response 

exercises (as in the UK) the inclusion of observers and participants from other countries 

will form the second phase of the exercise to enhance competence and familiarity. 

4

Such discussions about good practice, based on successful outcomes and lessons learnt 

for future accidents will help prepare the partners for real live situations whilst helping 

to outline any gaps in their procedures and establishing valuable relationships between 

individuals from each partnership as well as providing written Standing Instructions 

about appropriate program protocols. 

The ultimate aim is to create a platform where policy developers and scientists from 

European coastal countries can meet, discuss and exchange ideas and protocols about 

the balance and scope of the AMP research, as outlined in the ERANET scheme. This 

will also help promote Exchange Programmes and Facility Sharing 

• Exchange Programmes. 

In order to provide additional opportunities for the exchange of “best practice” 

developed when dealing with incidents of accidental marine pollution the possibility 

of Exchange Programmes will be discussed. A comprehensive contacts list will be 

established with organisations offering pertinent services to aid research programme 

design and management such as damage assessment, contingency planning, training 

and GIS tools, collected under a Marine Data Information Partnership. Some of 

them maintain extensive libraries and a number of databases, and produce technical 

publications and videos, and this provides an additional training resource which can 

be utilised. This information will be made available through interactive web links to 

interested parties in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and technical exchange 

programmes and a framework for future sharing research programme management: 

training of personnel and best practice will be devised. 

• Facility Sharing. 

In the event of a major incident, laboratories which can carry out the analysis of 

pollutants in water, sediments and biota are essential both for management of the 

incident and any associated fishery closures, and for impact assessment. In many 

countries these may not be available or may not have adequate capacity, and the 

research facilities within other partner countries may be suitable for use elsewhere. 

By documenting the research facilities available in each country it may be possible 

to help those countries experiencing an accidental spill with appropriate expertise 

quickly and efficiently. Some testing of protocols may be needed to define the 

research agenda. This framework will ensure close co-operation between the 

partners and efficient inter-change of expertise and facilities thus helping to reduce 

the impact of marine emergency spills. 

4. Specific Workshop Objectives 

The objectives of the Workshop were (1) to provide a forum where policy 

developers and scientists from European coastal countries could exchange protocols 

for responding to accidental marine pollution, and ideas about the balance and scope 

of AMPERA research, (2) to discuss best practice in preparedness for responding to 

incidents of accidental marine pollution, and (3) to discuss future needs for research 

and development, particularly in terms of contingency planning and policy 

requirements. 

5

5. Workshop Proceedings – see also Appendix 1 and 2 

Details of the Workshop Agenda are given in Appendix 1. Background 

Information on Workshop delegates and the role of their Institutions/Organisations 

are given in Appendix 2. Copies of the presentations are attached as PDF files, and 

summaries are given below. 

5.1. Summary of Presentations 

Response to accidental marine pollution in Estonia - Bruno Liik (Border 

Guard, Estonia). 

The presentation outlines past, present and future sea pollution response in Estonia. 

Past. 

• Estonian Maritime Board was responsible for cleaning up pollution from the 

beginning of Estonian Republic in 1991 until 1995 (Ministry of Transportation 

and Communication) 

• Estonian Maritime Inspection took over pollution response operations from 1995 

until 2000 (Ministry of Environment). 

• Estonian Environment Inspection (Ministry of Environment) took over in 2000 

which represented a movement towards giving responsibility to the Board of 

Border Guard. 

Present. 

• Estonian Board of Border Guard (Ministry of Internal Affairs) took over in 2001 

and has the responsibility of arranging sea pollution recovery. 

Future vision. 

• Extended training for Borderguards, BG Ship crews and cooperation with whole 

own resources. 

• Close co-operation with neighbour countries (on the bases of practical training 

exercises and real cases). 

• Continuous betterment of equipment (hopefully ships and technics for ops.). 

• Development of Coastal Bases (Stock of equipment, etc.). 

To reach for HELCOM promised level, ability to recover 2500 T of oil. 

Marine pollution response in Belgium – Contingency arrangements, gaps 

and research needs - Thierry G. Jacques 

A brief outline was given of marine management in Belgium, the legal background, 

the administrative structure and the contingency plans that evolved in the aftermath 

of grave shipping accidents. The Belgian coast is a straight line and the coastal zone 

is a completely open sea area. Shipping is intense, both across the zone from the 

Strait of Dover to Northern Europe and through the zone to the Antwerp, Zeebrugge 

and Ostend seaports. This notwithstanding, the area enjoys valuable natural features, 

is biologically productive, and sustains a high fishery pressure. Spatial planning has 

always existed to some extent but is now receiving growing attention. The multiple 

use of the coastal zone and Exclusive Economic Zone is placing increasing 

constraints on traditional users and developers. A law on the protection of the marine 

environment, passed in 1999 and amended twice since, provides a legal framework 

within which those various interests can be managed. It also establishes the strict 

6

liability of the polluter and grants various federal authorities extensive powers to 

respond to maritime incidents. 

Belgium's contingency organisation to respond to accidental marine pollution takes 

different shapes depending on the situation. For small incidents, the Federal 

Department of the Environment takes the lead and can call on the assistance of 

partners within the Coast Guard Structure. Among those partners, the Navy, the 

Federal Science Policy Office, the Civil Protection and the shipping administration of 

the local Flemish Community play a prominent role. Contingency plans exist for the 

action at sea and for shore cleanup. When situations escalate to a disaster level, the 

North Sea emergency plan (Rampenplan Noordzee) is activated and the Governor of 

the Province of West-Flanders takes the lead in the capacity of General On Scene Coordinator. 

The Navy assumes the role of On Scene Commander afloat. 

In both the legal instruments and the contingency plans, considerable responsibilities 

are laid on government scientists. Not only does MUMM advise the Department of 

the Environment and the On Scene Co-ordinator on environmental matters, they also 

authorize the use of chemical treatment agents and the abandonment of combating 

means such as sorbents on the basis of a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis 

(NEBA). 

Carrying out a sound NEBA evaluation in real time in Belgium's zone of jurisdiction 

remains a scientific challenge, and this for several reasons. In spite of the availability 

of numerous modelling tools to predict the short-term ecological impact of a spill, 

enormous gaps of knowledge persist: these concern the behaviour of the pollutant (be 

it heavy fuel or unfamiliar harmful and noxious chemical substances, HNS); its 

toxicity to marine invertebrates; the toxicity of degradation products; secondary 

effects relating to the ecological interactions of impacted populations; and the longterm 

effects of persistent fractions both locally and through the food web. Whereas 

sensitivity mapping is a standard assessment tool in inshore environments, the 

technique becomes approximate and largely unreliable in the open sea: not only is the 

sensitivity of the seabed community difficult to determine, but the calculation of the 

exposure time of that community to effectual pollutant concentrations remains 

difficult. This all makes impact modelling ineffective or unreliable, except for the 

most obvious drift and dispersion components. 

The basic problem faced by the scientific adviser in a spill situation thus amounts to 

understanding enough of the relevant processes to be able to draw a mass balance of 

the spilled substance, locate the targets of each fraction, assess the vulnerability and 

sensitivity of these targets, predict losses, and then playing with the model (whether 

mental or computer) to test available options. How these various questions can be 

turned into useful research projects for the improvement of predicting tools and 

remedial measures should be the central concern of AMPERA. 

Monitoring and environmental impacts - Margot Cronin (Marine 

Institute, Ireland). 

This presentation gives a broad overview of the response system in Ireland for 

accidental marine pollution. It includes such aspects of monitoring as exist, and 

highlight the gaps. It will also include aspirational monitoring procedures. 

Preparedness and response: Main findings through recent trans-national 

and collaborative works - Marisa Fernandez (CETMAR, Spain). 

7

As a consequence of recent oil spills in EU a number of collaborative and transnational 

projects dealing with preparedness and response against oil spill have been 

developed with the aim of improving capacities of Member States and coastal regions 

to cope with emergencies through the exchange of knowledge and experience 

between coastal regions. CETMAR has become involved in a number of research 

projects such as EROCIPS, SPREEX, Workshop on Environmental Damage, 

CONTINMAR, PREVECMA, all of which address issues such as contingency 

planning, risk assessment, response options and techniques, training, environmental 

impact, networking, etc. Main outputs, findings and conclusions were presented for 

discussion. 

SolSpill/SolFire - Captain Philip Holliday (Southampton Harbour 

Authority, UK). 

The port of Southampton is described, along with the scale of its operations. It is, for 

example, the second largest container port in the UK. For the purposes of organising 

a response to oil spills, the port area is divided into SolFire regions. In addition, the 

numerous response plans prepared for the multiplicity of installations in the region 

are interfaced into a single port plan, which links to the MCA’s National 

Contingency Plan. Spills are also classified as tier 1, 2 or 3 in the standard manner, 

depending on the scale of resources which need to be deployed in order to tackle 

them (SolSpill A to D). In the Southampton area, plans also have to take account of 

an extremely high level of recreational yachting activity co-existing with the port 

traffic. 

Natural England’s marine pollution response plan. - Steve Benn (Natural 

England, UK). 

This presentation explains Natural Englands Marine Pollution Response Plan 

(NEMPRP) and how it is used in the Incident Control System in our responses to 

Accidental Marine Pollution. 

Preparing to use dispersants - Approvals, permissions and relevant 

advice’ - Mark Kirby (Cefas Burnham, UK). 

The presentation will cover the following areas; 

• At sea response options. 

• Dispersants – when and where they can be used in the UK. 

• The statutory approval process for oil spill treatment products in the UK. 

• Relevant environmental advice required from an environment group when 

decided on response options. 

Identifying response options - Dr. Karen Purnell (International Tanker 

Owners’ Pollution Federation, UK). 

This presentation highlights the issues that should be considered when identifying oil 

spill response options. She discusses the reasons for undertaking a response in the 

first instance and the importance of balancing the benefits likely to be achieved 

against the risk of causing more damage to sensitive resources than the oil itself. In 

the process of discussing these issues, consideration is given to the more important 

8

clean-up strategies for responding to oil at sea and on the shoreline and the 

consequence of these strategies on waste disposal. 

Pre-Planning environmental advice on the use of dispersants around the 

Welsh Coast in the event of an oil pollution incident - Andrew Hill 

(Countryside Council for Wales, UK) 

During a maritime pollution incident DEFRA will consult the appropriate 

environmental agencies for advice on the use of dispersants in shallow water. 

Environmental advice must be given to Defra in the shortest possible time. The 

implications of dispersant use for environmental resources around the North and 

South West coast of Wales have been considered in advance and summarised in the 

guidance documents to facilitate rapid provision of this advice. 

It is intended that this advice will be used by emergency contacts within the 

environmental agencies that will be consulted by Defra in the very early stages of 

incident notification. This advice facilitates, but does not replace, the discussions that 

will need to take place quickly during an incident. This guidance is generic and may 

be adapted to take account of precise circumstances, particularly where dispersant 

use continues beyond the very early stages of an incident and the need for advice is 

prolonged. 

For the purposes of the hardcopy report, Environment Group advice on dispersant 

use/non-use around the north and south-west coasts of Wales has been summarised 

over A3 sized zoning maps. However, the maps have also been provided in electronic 

format on CD so that local zoning detail can be viewed at a larger scale on-screen. 

The guidance has been developed on the basis of discussions and workshops 

involving members North Wales and West Wales Standing Environment Groups. 

The Management of Waste in the UK following Marine Oil Spills - Ged 

Davies (Environment Agency, UK). 

The presentation outlines the Agency’s approach to sustainable waste management in 

England and Wales, emphasising minimising waste production, rather than 

facilitating disposal. 

The response structure under the National Contingency Plan is considered and the 

role of some of the response cells in terms of their contribution to waste management. 

The UK strategy is to tackle spills at sea in the first instance. 

Particular attention is paid to the role and team work of the Shoreline Response 

Centre Technical team, the Environment Group, Shoreline Clean-up Assessment 

teams and Beach masters in delivering Net Environmental Benefit at the collection 

stage. 

The key tasks of the waste management sub group and role of local authorities is 

described as the waste that is collected must be stored in primary, intermediate and 

final storage facilities. These facilities need to be identified in contingency plans. 

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency run training programmes for Beachmasters, 

local authorities and statutory environmental organisations to support responders 

levels of preparedness for incidents to ensure the National Contingency Plan can be 

effectively implemented. 

9

An MCA collaborative research project has looked into the current state of local 

authority contingency planning and the availability of an industrial infrastructure to 

deal with oily waste. The project also includes guidance for local authorities on 

constructing generic intermediate and final stores. 

Another MCA collaborative project has recently looked at SCAT forms and a 

supporting guidance manual. 

The Countryside Council for Wales has developed guidance to assess net 

environmental benefit. 

The EROCIPS (Emergency Response to Chemical and Inert Pollution of the Sea ) 

Interreg project will be completed late this year. 

Small local authorities often struggle to allocate resource for contingency planning 

for what may appear rare events. This research work currently being carried out 

needs to be made accessible to these authorities in a format which will help them 

adopt plans and access 

The final treatment of waste remains unplanned. There is scope for further work to 

evaluate the technical the recent responses to the Erika and Prestige and given the 

common basis of our environmental law, develop a European solution to final 

treatment. 

Towards a National Strategy to Mitigate Marine Pollution Emergencies: 

Lessons learnt from the Prestige Incident - António Jorge da Silva, 

Instituto Hidrográfico, Lisboa, Portugal. 

In 1993 the Portuguese Government Cabinet approved an Emergency Plan for the 

Combat of Marine Pollution by Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Materials: the 

Clean Sea Plan. Though the Plan is supervised by an inter-ministerial committee 

(National Defence, Internal Affairs and Environment, in the present Cabinet 

composition), the responsibility for all operations of pollution combat was committed 

to the Maritime Authority System. In practical terms, this means that the Maritime 

Authority coordinates not just its own resources but also those belonging to other 

intervening organisations, as well as those that may be requisitioned or mobilized for 

any particular operation, including the possibility to procure international assistance. 

Though the Clean Sea Plan is an excellent theoretical framework for ensuring the 

success of a pollution combat operation, there is not a clearly assumed national 

research programme for the mitigation of marine pollution incidents. A significant 

number of research groups do exist, however, often in conditions contributing to such 

purpose, at both the planning and the operational phases. One such group may be 

found within the Navy system, at the Hydrographic Institute (IH), and is therefore a 

permanent decision aid of the Maritime Authority. 

The most evident operational performance of IH was the monitoring of the 

hydrocarbon spill resulting from the Prestige incident, conducted under the 

supervision of the Maritime Authority System. Along a time span of more than two 

months, the Maritime Authority and the Government were permanently updated, at 

least daily, of the past spatial evolution of the pollution as well as of the predictions 

10

for the days to come. In addition, information has also been regularly sent to 

research groups in Portugal and abroad as well as to interested parties in the countries 

affected by the spills. Exchange of information was permanent with France and 

Spain. Assistance from other research groups, both in Europe and the US, was also 

obtained on a timely basis that allowed IH to obtain its success. The general public 

were also informed daily through the media during a briefing held by the Minister of 

Defence. 

The whole system was based upon an observation-forecast-observation methodology 

which relied on Portuguese Air Force flights over the area affected by the incident. 

These were combined with the monitoring of surface drifters deployed at its 

periphery and a set of models which were made operational as the conditions 

imposed. As fast responses were a must, a simple model was employed of the 

surface displacement associated with the wind induced current. Although the 

forecasts were likely to be unreliable after three days, the decision was made to 

present them for the whole time span of the wind forecasts. The idea was to suggest 

tendencies that could be taken into account by the decision makers. 

As the spills approached the continental mass, more physical processes had to be 

taken into account in the forecasts thus more complex models had to be made 

operational. Sometimes the results appeared contradictory, depending on the set of 

processes that had been accounted for. Then several possibilities of evolution were 

displayed with the modelling team revealing the uncertainties that were apparent. 

The system proved adequate enough up to the moment where the shoreline became 

affected by the hydrocarbons. Then the lack of an adequate model of the littoral drift 

current was felt and the predictions of the long-shore transport of the pollution were 

regarded as unreliable. 

Following the incident, several research groups devoted effort in the development of 

products that may be efficiently used when an operational response is needed to a 

pollution emergency. The Maritime Authority has contracted a University group to 

develop a data basis to ease the operations within the Clean Sea Plan. At IH effort 

has been put into the improvement of the forecasts of littoral drift current and a pilot 

experiment has been conducted to measure and model it. We would like to think that 

most of what is going on is a result of our commitment as well as of the wide open 

attitude adopted during the incident monitoring. 

The relationship between research centres and decision-makers in recent 

chemical incidents (Levoli Sun and Ece incidents) - Georges Peigné 

(Cedre, France). 

The assistance provided by research centres to decision makers responding to an 

accidental marine spill is not limited to technical expertises based on existing 

knowledge. It may also include experimentations carried out in laboratories, in 

dedicated facilities or in situ during the crisis if available data are insufficient to give 

accurate advices. 

Experiments and studies conducted by Cedre, in co-operation with other members of 

experts committees, following the Ievoli Sun and Ece sinking in the Channel, give 

good examples of questions asked by decision makers and the way answers can be 

provided by conducting experiments under the pressure of a crisis situation. 

The chemical carrier Ievoli Sun sank in October 2001 offshore Alderney island in the 

channel with bunkers and a cargo of Styrene, Methyl-Ethyl-Ketone (MEK) and Iso- 

11

Propylic Alcohol (IPA). Cedre got involved in two groups of experts set up by the 

authorities, one dealing with risk assessment and the second with the response 

techniques. It appeared rapidly that experimentations were needed to answer 

questions related both to population exposure and to response techniques. Lab test 

and mesoscale experiments were carried out first to evaluate styrene evaporation and 

solubility in sea water. They allowed defining a restricted area above the wreck. 

Concerning population exposure to seafood contamination, as contaminated 

crustaceans were fished close to the wreck questions raised about the detection of 

styrene in crustacean by potential consumers. A testing facility and a procedure were 

specifically designed. Crabs, mussels and oysters were exposed and sampled, and 

olfactory tests were conducted and analyzed. 

Concerning the response techniques, laboratory and mesoscale tests were conducted 

to evaluate the feasibility of styrene pumping, by answering to the question: “can 

styrene polymerise in the wreck due to the fact that its polymerisation inhibitor is 

soluble in sea water?”. Last but not least a testing facility and a dedicated protocol 

were designed to assess if and how MEK and IPA could be released from the wreck 

and let dissolve in the water without risk of reaching the sea surface. These tests 

helped reaching an agreement between the authorities and the ship owner, for the 

solution finally adopted: the pumping of styrene and the controlled released of MEK 

and IPA. 

The chemical carrier ECE sank in February 2006 not far from location of the Ievoli 

Sun sinking, with less bunkers and a 10 000 ton cargo of non purified phosphoric 

acid. An expert committee was set up by French and English authorities to analyze 

the ship owner proposals concerning the fate of the cargo and bulk. Once again, 

specific studies and experiments were needed and carried out by several research 

centres. Cedre conducted lab and mesoscale tests to evaluate the behaviour of 

phosphoric acid in the tanks when opened. Thanks to the various studies and 

experiments conducted, an agreement could be reached between the authorities and 

the ship owner, for the controlled release of the phosphoric acid in summer. 

These examples point out that answers to questions from decision makers can not 

always be found in the literature and the possibility of conducting experiments in 

emergency conditions to answer questions can be of paramount importance for 

decision making. Lessons learned from such experiences shall also encourage for the 

development of specifically designed experimental facilities and other tools that can 

be used either in an emergency situation or in spill response preparedness. Last but 

not least the co-operation between authorities and research centres is essential, as 

well as the availability of facilities and teams of specialized research centres. 

Response to dangerous goods during the MSC Napoli incident - Keith 

Bradley (MCA, UK). 

This presentation covers the following points: 

• Information gathering. 

• Information dissemination. 

• Freedom of information. 

• Perceptions. 

• Consequences- actual and potential. 

• Assessment of risk. 

12

6. Key Points arising from Discussions 

Operational Issues: 

• Collaboration with other groups that have tried to get information on the 

amounts of oil being shipped from Russia through the Baltic and Barents Sea. 

• How can more reliable information on the specification of oils coming from 

Russia be obtained? 

• A number of countries rely on off-shore recovery vessels to respond to a spill at 

sea. How much work has been done to inform governments/responders of the 

type of skimming, storage capacity/systems (i.e. with or without heating systems 

to aid transfer of recovered oil) that would be most appropriate for a particular 

scenario? For example, some systems are better suited to heavy oils whereas 

others are better suited to light oils. There may be difficulties for countries to 

have expenses reimbursed from the Compensation systems if vessels are sent 

without regard for their suitability and these costs can be very high ! 

• Better methods of surveillance, detection and recovery of sunken oils / subsurface 

oils are needed. 

• Satellite monitoring – a number of projects have been initiated. Are they 

delivering expected results? Are there gaps? Could the results be used to show 

trends highlighting other areas where research effort could be focussed? 

• Treatment of waste arising from spills is still an issue and likely to become more 

of an issue with more stringent legislation in the EU. In the UK, the MCA is 

about to embark on a project to look at the design of a treatment facility for such 

waste and will need project partners. 

• Improvements in decision support tools needed [CETMAR]. It was noted that 

EMSA is producing a decision support tool for dispersant use. 

• Bioremediation – more use of field tests to allow wider scope – IMO has 

produced guidelines on the use of bioremediation following oil spills. 

Environmental 

• Are the toxicity tests undertaken adequate / relevant to indicate effects of oil on 

species, i.e. are the indicator species the right ones for marine and brackish water 

environments, particularly for benthic species? 

• Better understanding of the fate and behaviour of different pollutants (oils and 

chemicals) in a marine and brackish water environment is needed. Findings 

should be used to verify modelling. 

• Guidelines on post-spill monitoring would be useful. An IMO group, the 

OPRC/OPRC-HNS Technical Group, is in the process of producing such 

guidelines but experiencing severe difficulties due to differences of opinions 

between countries and parties (operational monitoring versus estimation of 

environmental “damages”). 

Modelling 

• Greater need for ground-truthing results and verification of outputs. 

Political 

• To what extent do policies / governments ‘buy into’ R&D? 

• Joint exercises and co-operations, regional, bilateral agreements have been 

beneficial to countries. 

13

• Guidelines on cost-recovery following incidents is needed – The IOPC Fund 

produces guidelines for claims under the Fund Convention – applicable more 

generally, www.iopcfund.org . An EU-funded claims workshop will be taking 

place in the future. 

7. Conclusions 

In general, the Workshop provided a good opportunity for partners to exchange 

information about their respective approaches. With the large number of 

presentations, there was relatively little time to discuss best practice for 

preparedness and response, or future needs for research and development. There 

remains a need for ‘working groups’ to be formed to address the key issues facing 

accidental marine pollution in Europe. The Phase 2 Workshop will provide the 

opportunity to build on this Workshop, to fully meet the objectives of Work 

Package 3. 

Following this workshop, the intention is to circulate a questionnaire to the 

AMPERA participants for input regarding training needs for those involved in the 

field of response to accidental marine pollution. This information will feed into the 

design of the emergency response activity phase 2 to be held in 2008. 

14

Appendix 1 

AMPERA Workshop: Best Practice In Accidental Marine Pollution Response. 

Agenda. 

Opening: 18 April 2007, 09:00 

Closing: 19 April 2007, 16:00 

Venue: 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) 

Spring Place. Southampton 

(Tel: +44 23 8032 9410) 

Day 1: 18 th April 

08:45 Transport to Spring Place, MCA from Jury’s Inn Hotel. 

Session 1 - Meeting room R3/4. 

Session Chair – Karen Purnell, ITOPF. 

09:00 Welcome Address 

John Astbury, CEO Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

09:15 Response to accidental marine pollution in Estonia. 

Bruno Liik (Border Guard, Estonia). 

09:45 Marine pollution response in Belgium – Contingency arrangements, gaps and 

research needs. 

Thierry Jacques (MUMM, Belgium). 

10:15 Discussion. 

10:30 Coffee break. 

11:00 Monitoring and environmental impacts. 

Margot Cronin (Marine Institute, Ireland). 

11:25 The grounding of MV Server in Norway, February 12 2007. 

Hans Erik Lofthuis (Coastal Administration, Norway). 

11:50 Preparedness and response: Main findings through recent trans-national and 

collaborative works. 

Marisa Fernandez (CETMAR, Spain). 

12:15 Discussion 

12:30 Lunch break 

13:15 Group to split 

Group A a) Visit MEIR. 

b) Short video/film presentation. 

15

Group B a) Short video/film presentation. 

b) Visit MEIR. 

14:00 Transport to Quay for trip and presentations on boat, ‘SS Shieldhall’ 

Session 2 – SS Shieldhall 

Session Chair – Paul Leonard, Defra. 

14:30 Title TBA. 

Captain Philip Holliday (Southampton Harbour Authority, UK). 

14:45 UK National Contingency Plan. 

Kevin Colcomb (Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK) 

15:10 Natural England’s marine pollution response plan. 

Steve Benn (Natural England, UK). 

15:30 Preparing to use dispersants – Approvals, permissions and relevant advice. 

Mark Kirby (Cefas Burnham, UK). 

15:55 Predicting movement and beaching of oil and containers from MSC Napoli. 

Jon Rees (Cefas Lowestoft, UK). 

16:20 Identifying response options. 

Karen Purnell (International Tanker Owners’ Pollution Federation, UK). 

16:45 Pre-Planning environmental advice on the use of dispersants around the Welsh 

Coast in the event of an oil pollution incident. 

Andrew Hill (Countryside Council for Wales, UK) 

17:10 The Management of Waste in the UK following Marine Oil Spills. 

Ged Davies (Environment Agency, UK). 


18:00 Close of Session. 

18:15 Transport returns to Jury’s Inn Hotel. 

19:15 Transport to Colleys Supper Rooms (Swaythling). 

22:30 Transport returns to Jury’s Inn Hotel. 

16

Day 2: 19 th April 

09:30 Transport from Jury’s Inn Hotel to OSRL/EARL, Southampton (Oil Spill 

Response and East Asia Response Limited). 

09:45 Tour of OSRL/EARL. 

11:30 Transport return to Spring Place, MCA. 

12:00 Lunch at Spring Place. 

Session 3 - Meeting room L2/3 

Session Chair – Thierry Jacques, MUMM. 

13:00 Towards a National Strategy to Mitigate Marine Pollution Emergencies: 

Lessons learnt from the Prestige Incident. 

António Jorge da Silva (Portuguese Hydrographical Institute). 

13:30 The relationship between research centres and decision-makers in recent 

chemical incidents (Ievoli Sun and Ece incidents). 

Georges Peigne (CEDRE, France). 

13:55 Salvage and at-sea response during the MSC Napoli incident. 

Toby Stone (Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK). 

14:20 Response to dangerous goods during the MSC Napoli incident. 

Keith Bradley (MCA, UK). 

14:45 Environmental monitoring during the MSC Napoli incident. 

Mark Kirby (Cefas, UK). 


16:00 Close of Workshop. 

Paul Leonard (Defra, UK). 

17

Appendix 2 

Background Information - Speakers and Institutions/Organisations 

John Astbury, CEO Maritime and Coastguard Agency - Welcome Address 

John Astbury became Acting Chief Executive on 1 February 2006. He has been with 

the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and its predecessor organisations for over 30 

years and has vast experience having spent time as an operational coastguard, a Chief 

Operations Officer, a Regional Controller, and the Operations Director. 

Bruno Liik (Border Guard, Estonia) - Response to accidental marine pollution in 

Estonia 

Mr TAUNO METTIS 

Senior Technical Official 

Sea Pollution Recovery Group 

Phone: +372 614 9136 

tauno.mettis@pv.ee 

Mr BRUNO LIIK 

Senior Service Official 

Sea Pollution Recovery Group 

Phone: +372 614 9137 

bruno.liik@pv.ee 

Main organisational activities include; 

• Maintenance of available recovery equipment. 

• Procurement of new recovery equipment. 

• Recovering real pollution cases at sea. 

• Sustainable Staff training at sea to learn handling recovery equipment. 

• Sea pollution modeling by Sea Track Web (SMHI Sweden). 

• International/national relations and EU projects EGEMP-MARCOAST-EMSA 

(Satellite Monitoring). 

• Annual updating of the Pollution Recovery Plan (Border Guard Action Plan). 

• Sea pollution statistics. 

Thierry G. Jacques, Management Unit of the North Sea and Scheldt Estuary 

Mathematical Models (MUMM), Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, 

Belgium. (www.mumm.ac.be) - Marine pollution response in Belgium – 

Contingency arrangements, gaps and research needs 

Thierry Jacques is a biological oceanographer and an honorary Commander in the 

Belgian Navy. He has carried out numerous surveys of coastal resources around the 

world and had advised on contingency planning for accidental pollution both at home 

ant abroad. He played an active role in the development of the Bonn Agreement and 

has directed several pilot projects on behalf of the European Commission. He has been 

associated with counter-pollution response in Belgium for over 25 years. 

18

The Management Unit of the North Sea and Scheldt Estuary Mathematical Models 

(MUMM) is a department of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. It 

undertakes basic oceanographic research, runs the research vessel BELGICA, a twinengine 

aircraft (Belgian North Sea Aerial Survey), the Belgian Marine Data Centre 

(BMDC) database, a computer modelling facility and a chemical laboratory. MUMM 

advises the Belgian Government on marine management issues and has legal powers at 

sea as one of the Coastal State authorities. 

The Marine Ecosystem Management Section at MUMM is more particularly 

responsible for nature conservation issues and environmental emergencies. The section 

co-ordinates environmental impact assessment studies and advises the Government on 

permit applications for economic activities at sea, ranging from offshore bunkering to 

wind-energy parks. In the case of oil spills, the section provides aerial support, carries 

out net environmental benefit analyses (NEBA) and advises the On Scene Co-ordinator. 

MUMM is a member of the Coast Guard Structure, an interdepartmental arrangement 

that centralises communications and co-ordinates sea-going means. 

Margot Cronin (Marine Institute, Ireland) - Monitoring and environmental 

impacts. 

Margot is employed as a Marine Environment Chemist at the Marine Institute. 

Her current responsibilities include: 

• Assessment of chemical use and discharge in offshore oil & gas industry. 

• Provision of chemical & environment advice to Petroleum Affairs Division of 

Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. 

• Assessment of suitability of dredge material for sea disposal. 

• Provision of contaminant and environment advice to the Marine License Vetting 

Committee. 

• Irish delegate for OSPAR Offshore Industry Committees. 

• Irish delegate for OSPAR Environmental Impact of Human Activities subcommittee. 

• Marine Institute cross-divisional project input. 

The Marine Institute is the national agency responsible for Marine Research, 

Technology Development and Innovation (RTDI) in Ireland. The Institute was set up 

under the 1991 Marine Institute Act with the following role: 

“to undertake, to co-ordinate, to promote and to assist in marine research and 

development and to provide such services related to research and development 

that, in the opinion of the Institute, will promote economic development and create 

employment and protect the marine environment” 

Hans Erik Lofthuis (Norwegian Coastal Administration)- The grounding of MV 

Server in Norway, February 12 2007. 

NCA is a governmental organisation who has the responsibility for: 

19

• Fairways. 

• Aids to Navigation (traditional, electrical and information systems). 

• Pilot services. 

• Maritime traffic controls. 

• Fishery harbours. 

• Governmental preparedness for pollution incidents. 

With respect to Accidental Marine Pollution Response the NCA is responsible for the 

provision of practical advice relating to all aspects of response to both the Norwegian 

government and all other relevant stakeholders (http://www.kystverket.no). 

Marisa Fernandez (CETMAR, Spain) - Preparedness and response: Main findings 

through recent trans-national and collaborative works. 

Marisa Fernandez has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and is specialised in marine pollution. She 

has wide experience in participating in international ambit collaboration activities and 

research projects and was responsible at the Community Reference Laboratory on 

Marine Toxins (Vigo, Spain) for the coordination of the Network of European National 

Reference Laboratories for Marine Toxins and for the Area of Chemical Analyses for 

more than 9 years. 

From 2002, she was in charge of the Department of Control and Management of Marine 

Environment & Resources in CETMAR where she was developing and coordinating a 

number of regional, national and EU projects related to marine pollution, aquaculture 

and fisheries. 

CETMAR is a public foundation located in Vigo and set up in June 2001 by the Spanish 

Ministry of Science and Technology and the Galician Government (Xunta de Galicia). 

(www.cetmar.org). CETMAR aims to improve the conditions for the sustainable 

development of marine resources and, within this framework, to increase the efficiency 

of the sectors within fisheries, aquaculture and seafood processing, along with all those 

activities directly or indirectly linked to the use and exploitation of the sea and its 

resources. The main strategies are focused on the achievement of a higher degree of 

inter-institutional cooperation and interdisciplinary integration of the R&D resources 

available and a higher involvement of the target production sector in the development of 

R&D and technological development activities. It also aims to take all steps required for 

the preservation and responsible use of the marine environment and its resources. This 

role covers education and training, scientific research and technological development 

and innovation. 

Captain Philip Holliday (Southampton Harbour Authority, UK) - SolSpill/SolFire. 

Captain Philip Holliday was appointed harbour master for the Port of Southampton in 

early 2007. Prior to this appointment he was the marine advisor for Associated British 

Ports and marine manager for ABP’s South 

Wales ports. He has served at sea with several companies including Souter 

Shipping and Ropner before joining ABP in 1998. 

20

The port’s harbour master is answerable for the many thousands of commercial and 

leisure vessels that use the Solent and Southampton Water 

every year. 

Kevin Colcomb (Maritime and Coastguard Agency, UK) - UK National 

Contingency Plan. 

Kevin Colcomb is the Senior Scientific Officer in the Counter Pollution and Response 

Branch of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 

He graduated in Environmental Sciences from the University of East Anglia at Norwich 

in 1985, after which he worked at the UK Warren Spring Laboratory on a number of 

research projects in the field of maritime pollution. Those projects included the fate of 

oil at sea, the development of clean-up techniques for all types of shorelines and the 

application of dispersants to maritime oil spills. 

In 1993 Kevin joined the Marine Pollution Control Unit, now Counter Pollution Branch 

of the MCA. His current responsibilities are primarily to ensure timely response to 

marine oil spills in UK waters, and to provide technical and scientific advice for dealing 

with marine pollution in general. He is also responsible for providing advice to local 

authorities on all aspects of marine and shoreline pollution through exercises and 

training courses. He is at present supervising several research projects aimed at 

improving the preparedness of UK agencies in responding to marine pollution incidents. 

Kevin was involved in the last three significant UK oil spills, the ROSE BAY, the 

BRAER and the SEA EMPRESS incidents as well as the ERIKA and PRESTIGE spills. 

Current activities are centred around forging links with other statutory government 

bodies in the area of response to maritime incidents in line with the new National 

Contingency Plan. He is presently working with the UK environmental regulators, 

nature conservation bodies and fisheries departments in the areas of coastal protection, 

waste disposal and the setting up of standing environment groups on a regional basis 

throughout the UK. 

The MCA responds to spills of oil and other hazardous substances in the UK waters. 

They are responsible throughout the UK for the provision of practical advice relating to 

all aspects of coastguard response including maritime emergencies, accidental marine 

pollution and maritime safety to both the UK government and all other relevant 

stakeholders. 

Specifically this means the MCA is responsible for executing and co-ordinating, from 

the ground, the UK emergency response contingency plan in the event of a spill in the 

marine environment. 

Steve Benn (Natural England, UK) - Natural England’s marine pollution response 

plan. 

Steve is the National lead for marine oil pollution and shipping at Natural England. His 

role during marine oil pollution incidents is to coordinate Natural England's response in 

conjunction with Area and Regional Teams. Steve is a member of the Marine, Coastal 

21

and Freshwater Ecosystems Team within the Science and Evidence Team based at 

Northminster House, Peterborough. 

Natural England has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that England's 

unique natural environment including its land, flora and fauna, freshwater and marine 

environments, geology and soils are protected and improved. They also have the 

responsibility to help people enjoy, understand and access the natural environment. 

Mark Kirby (Cefas Burnham, UK) - Preparing to use dispersants - Approvals, 

permissions and relevant advice; Environmental monitoring during the MSC 

Napoli incident. 

Mark is an Ecotoxicologist for the Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Science (Cefas) with over 20 years experience working on a range of studies pertaining 

to aquatic pollution. His main focus of work has been on the toxicological impacts of oil 

and chemical spills and the assessment of appropriate methods of mitigation (e.g. use of 

dispersants, sorbents, bioremediation products, surface cleaners etc.). He has been 

involved in a number of emergency response incidents from the Sea Empress to the 

MSC Napoli. Mark is a key advisor to the government and industry on the testing and 

approval of oil spill treatment products and the impacts of accidental spills. Research 

interests involve the study and broad understanding of pollutants in the marine 

environment with particular interests in oil, oil dispersants, endocrine disruptors, PAH, 

hydrocarbons, pesticides etc. including the use of biological sentinel species, 

biomarkers and bioassays to monitor the impacts of pollutants. Actively involved in 

overseeing advice and research pertaining to the monitoring of impacts of the activities 

of the offshore oil and gas industry (including drilling, produced water, cuttings piles, 

production and decommissioning) including physical impacts and those caused by 

discharged chemicals. 

Cefas is the Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs (Defra), and an internationally recognised centre of excellence for research, 

assessment and advice on fisheries management, aquaculture and environment 

protection. They undertake a wide range of research, advisory, consultancy, monitoring 

and training activities for a broad customer base which includes Government 

departments. Much of Cefas work is conducted for the UK Government and the 

European Union where their research and advice is utilised by policy makers, 

Specifically Cefas provides the following services: 

• Assessment and advice for managing and conserving fisheries. 

• Environmental monitoring and assessment of nutrients, radionuclides, chemicals 

and other contaminants in the environment. 

• Advice on aquaculture, disease control and hygiene of fish and shellfish. 

• Incidents and emergency response service. 

• Research and project management in support of the services above. 

With respect to marine emergencies Cefas carry out research in order to advise Defra on 

all aspects of oil and chemical spill response, remediation and long term monitoring of 

spill sites. 

22

Jon Rees (Cefas Lowestoft, UK) - Predicting movement and beaching of oil and 

containers from MSC Napoli. 

Jon Rees is an oceanographer within Cefas. 

Cefas is the Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs (Defra), and an internationally recognised centre of excellence for research, 

assessment and advice on fisheries management, aquaculture and environment 

protection. They undertake a wide range of research, advisory, consultancy, monitoring 

and training activities for a broad customer base which includes Government 

departments. Much of Cefas work is conducted for the UK Government and the 

European Union where their research and advice is utilised by policy makers, 

Specifically Cefas provides the following services: 

• Assessment and advice for managing and conserving fisheries. 

• Environmental monitoring and assessment of nutrients, radionuclides, chemicals 

and other contaminants in the environment. 

• Advice on aquaculture, disease control and hygiene of fish and shellfish. 

• Incidents and emergency response service. 

• Research and project management in support of the services above. 

With respect to marine emergencies Cefas carry out research in order to advise Defra on 

all aspects of oil and chemical spill response, remediation and long term monitoring of 

spill sites. 

Dr. Karen Purnell (International Tanker Owners’ Pollution Federation, UK) - 

Identifying response options. 

Dr. Karen Purnell is a chartered chemist and member of the Royal Society of 

Chemistry. She completed her degree and doctorate in Bristol, UK and joined ITOPF in 

1994. Since then she has attended several major oil spill incidents in many different 

countries including the ‘SEA EMPRESS’ in the UK, the ‘PRESTIGE’, in Spain, the 

‘TASMAN SPIRIT’ in Pakistan and the ‘VICUÑA’ in Brazil. More recently she has 

served as part of a team of experts working with the IMO and other UN organizations 

providing technical advice to the Lebanese Ministry of Environment following an oil 

spill into the Mediterranean caused by hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. 

As a technical team manager, Karen is responsible for co-ordinating and steering the 

work of ITOPF’s technical staff as well as attending the more serious oil spill incidents. 

She is normally invited to attend on behalf of the P&I Clubs or the IOPC Fund and her 

role is to provide technical advice on the clean-up of any spillage of oil and chemicals 

and provide guidance on mitigating damage to environmental and economic resources. 

Following on from her attendance on site, Karen will be involved in the technical 

assessment of subsequent claims for compensation. Karen also leads the Hazardous and 

Noxious Substances (HNS) working group within ITOPF, which has been established in 

anticipation of an increasing demand for technical advice on chemical spills. 

23

Andrew Hill (Countryside Council for Wales, UK) - Pre-Planning environmental 

advice on the use of dispersants around the Welsh Coast in the event of an oil 

pollution incident. 

Marine Industries Policy officer with the Countryside Council for Wales (Welsh 

Assembly Governments Statutory advisor on natural heritage). This role involves 

advising on the environmental impacts of marine industries (oil and gas, ports and 

shipping), coordinating CCW's maritime pollution contingency planning arrangements 

and on other marine policy issues of relevance to nature conservation, including marine 

spatial planning, marine mapping and data management. 

Ged Davies (Environment Agency, UK) - The Management of Waste in the UK 

following Marine Oil Spills. 

Ged Davies is an operational team leader working with the Environment Agency. Ged 

sits on the Agency’s advisory National Marine Group and represents the Agency on the 

Emergency Planning Society oil spill Professional Working group. He is involved with 

the EROCIPS (Emergency Response to Chemical and Inert Pollution of the Sea ) 

Interreg project. He is working on a collaborative project with the local authority in his 

operational area to write their onshore plan. 

Ged’s experience in oil spill response began in 1996 when he was in charge of the day 

to day regulation of waste in Pembrokeshire at the time of the Sea Empress spill. Since 

that date he has been involved in producing guidance and delivering training in support 

of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 

António Jorge da Silva, Instituto Hidrográfico, Lisboa, Portugal - Towards a 

National Strategy to Mitigate Marine Pollution Emergencies: Lessons learnt from 

the Prestige Incident. 

António Jorge da Silva graduated as a chemical engineer in 1976 and subsequently 

moved to Mozambique in 1977 where he started working in Physical Oceanography at 

the Fisheries Research Institute (IIP), Maputo. After being enrolled in research 

programmes conducted under international cooperation, he became responsible for the 

establishment of the basis of a Physical Oceanography Department at IIP. 

He returned to Portugal in 1984 and joined the Hydrographic Institute (of the 

Portuguese Navy). Working at the Division of Oceanography, he was involved in the 

earlier stages of the cooperative research projects with the Fisheries Research Institute, 

Lisbon, as well as the development of data processing methods for CTDs and current 

meters. Mainly interested in processes on the continental shelf, he was part of the teams 

involved in the European projects OMEX and SEFOS. 

In 1999 he began working with processes at the land-sea interface and has since then 

been involved in studies of the freshwater influence on the coastal ocean. During the 

Prestige crisis he was part of the ad-hoc team set up at the Hydrographic Institute to 

monitor the incident. Presently he is responsible for the Environmental Monitoring area 

of his Division. 

24

Georges Peigné (Cedre, France) - The relationship between research centres and 

decision-makers in recent chemical incidents (Levoli Sun and Ece incidents). 

An engineer in naval construction, Georges Peigné joined Cedre in 1980, after 3 years 

of oceanographic research in France and in harbours development in Gabon. Along 

successive positions of responsibility at Cedre, he has always been more particularly in 

charge of organising and managing all aspects of testing and validation of anti-pollution 

equipment, whether for combat at sea or for containment, recovery and cleaning, in 

marine and freshwater bodies as well as ashore. He has himself taken part in the design 

and improvement of a number of equipment and devices now used world-wide. He has 

been personally involved as adviser in all the major oil spills Cedre had to deal with. He 

has participated in co-operation missions, international meetings, training sessions and 

advised in the preparation of contingency plans and/or in the selection of oil spill 

control equipment for Cedre clients and partners in more than 15 countries. He certainly 

is one of the water pollution experts with the widest experience in the selection of antipollution 

equipment and suitable combat methods. Deputy manager of Cedre, he is now 

in charge of co-ordinating all Research and Development activities conducted by Cedre 

as well as emergency response by our team to any type of accidental water spillage or 

risk of spillage. 

The French Centre of documentation, research and experimentation on accidental water 

pollution (Cedre) was created in 1978 within measures taken after the wreckage of the 

oil tanker Amoco Cadiz, to improve preparedness against accidental water pollution and 

strengthen the national response organisation. It is responsible, at national level, for 

documentation, research and experimentation on pollutants, their effects and the 

response means and tools to combat them. Its expertise encompasses both marine and 

inland waters. Its budget comes from contracts and public and private subsidies. 

Since its creation, Cedre has been working on a permanent programme of 

experimentations and applied research on water pollution at sea and inland, financed on 

both its own funds and short and medium-term contracts. This research, including the 

testing and evaluating of new equipment and products proposed by French and foreign 

companies, ranges from laboratory analysis to operational tests implemented during 

full-scale pollution fighting exercises. A minor part of this unique experience is 

recorded in confidential reports, but most results have been published in Cedre’s own 

issues, as well as in national and international publications intended for the scientific 

and industrial communities concerned with water pollution. 

Since 1979, Cedre had been called for advice and/or direct on-site assistance in over 

two thousand accidental water pollution incidents of all types and extent, in freshwater 

as well as at sea. Its public service duty, set by governmental directives, made so that 

most of these incidents concerned the French territory and its shoreline. Their number is 

now growing by 180 each year. But the list of its advisory services on incidents abroad, 

already over 100 at the turn of the millennium, is also growing of 10 to 15 every year. 

Through that experience, Cedre has acquired a unique capability of tackling all 

technical, human, social and environmental aspects of pollution and advising on the 

most effective response means. Its recommendations in such situations are not solely 

based on cleanup efficiency. They include a permanent concern for medium and long- 

25

term effects, looking for the best solutions at the lowest financial, biological et social 

costs. Another major aspect of Cedre’s activity is its role as a consultant, providing 

training services to set up or improve response preparedness in a number of 

administrations, agencies, forces and companies concerned with accidental water 

pollution, in France and worldwide. Cedre regularly issues technical guides, reports, 

information & decision-making systems for the benefit of contingency response staffs. 

Toby Stone (MCA, UK) - Salvage and at-sea response during the MSC Napoli 

incident. 





stakeholders. 




Toby Stone is the Head of the Counter Pollution and Response Branch. This branch is 

responsible for reviewing contingency plans from ports, harbours and local authorities 

in order to assess their compatibility with the National Contingency Plan. The branch 

also provides training and assistance to local authorities to aid in their response to any 

pollution in their regions. The Regional Operations Managers take responsibility for 

monitoring and dealing with pollution in their regions with support from HQ as needed. 

Keith Bradley (MCA, UK) - Response to dangerous goods during the MSC Napoli 

incident. 

Keith Bradley is a chemist by profession and a member of the Royal Society of 

Chemistry, Institution of Occupational Safety and Hygiene, and Institute of Quality 

Assurance. 

He joined MCA in July 2000, as MCA chemist for both bulk and packaged cargo 

matters and is currently working as a Hazardous Cargoes Adviser. 

His previous industrial experience involved a variety of roles within chemical industry 

ranging from development/production to distribution and marketing roles. Latterly 

Keith was involved in the development and auditing of quality/safety management 

systems. 

Keith’s role within the MCA is to represent the UK at IMO for IMDG Code issues, and 

he is also a member of the UK delegation to the UN sub committee of experts on the 

transport of dangerous goods. He also provides chemical advice, primarily on cargo 

issues especially Tripartite Agreements for MARPOL Annex II liquid bulk cargoes and, 

when requested, the to Counter Pollution Branch and acts an internal quality auditor. 

26





stakeholders. 




27

AMPERA - Centre d'InvestigaciÃ³ i Desenvolupament - CID

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?