Current Status of Oil Spill Response in Japanand a New Sensible Approach to the Issues

Takahiro HAGIHARA
Director, Disaster Prevention Department
Maritime Disaster Prevention Center (a General
Incorporated Foundation)
Maritime Disaster Prevention Institution designated byCommandant of the Japan Coast Guard

This symposium occupies an extremely important position in terms of improving andstrengthening Japan’s response to oil spills, and I would like to express myappreciation to the Petroleum Association of Japan and everyone else involved fortheir efforts. The Maritime Disaster Prevention Center (MDPC) operates on thefrontline of oil spill clean-up activities in times of emergency, and in peace times is
directly involved in the education and training of onshore and offshore disasterprevention personnel. Following on from my presentation at the 2012 symposium, I
greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak to this forum again.

I. The Maritime Disaster Prevention Center (MDPC)

When oil spills occur off the coast of Japan, the clean-up is addressed from two
positions. The first is that of the polluter, or the Responsible Party (RP)—for example,
shipowners and coastally-located petrochemical companies. The second is thegovernment position, i.e., that of the state and local authorities. MDPC operates fromthe position of the former, the RP.
Under Japanese law, including the Act on the Prevention of Marine Pollution andMaritime Disaster and the Act on the Prevention of Disaster in Petroleum Industrial
Complexes and Other Petroleum Facilities—referred to below as domestic law—the
primary responsibility for the clean-up lies with the RP. The scope of that
responsibility is recognized as including, for example, the obligation to t ake emergency
measures, the obligation to engage in clean-up measures, and the obligation to provide
assistance and cooperation.
1

It would be ideal that the RP could respond to the incident, mobilizing its own disaster
control organization and using the equipment which the RP is legally obligated to store.
However, in cases where oil spilled from an onshore facility has spread right across theport, the problem becomes more complicated, including coordination with local parties.
In such cases, in response to a request from the RP (shipowner, petrochemical company,etc.), MDPC concludes a contract with the RP on maritime disaster response measures.
Then in case of an oil spill, it launches clean-up measures, and in cases of spills or fires
involving highly combustible or highly

toxic hazardous substances, it takes

countermeasures that include confirming site safety and extinguishing fires.
MDPC’s work is not limited to dealing with oil spills. In Japan, “maritime disasters”
include spills of oil and toxic liquid substances into the sea, as well as fires at sea.
MDPC consequently deals with maritime disasters at the site from the position of the
RP and on behalf of the RP, with whom primary responsibility lies. Since 1976, we havedealt with more than 160 maritime disasters.
At an actual spill site, you cannot expect the Japan Coast Guard and other government
institutions involved in marine pollution issues take strong leadership and decideclean-up strategies and tactics.

Specifically, the local Coast Guard Office convenes a liaison meeting bringing together
private sectors and administrative institutions involved with the incident. The main
purpose of this meeting is to explain the RP’s clean-up activities in public waters tointerested local parties and obtain their agreement. In other words it can be a local
community consensus-building meeting. MDPC represents the RP, making best-efforts
to obtain consensus on the content of Incident Action Plans (IAPs) and the completionof clean-up activities, planning and implementing efficient and effective clean-up
operations with a balance among environmental, economic, and policy factors.

MDPC has a staff of around 60 and only two large-scale fire-fighting ships. However, at
key ports we conclude pre-contracts with port-related private firms engaged in tugging,port and warehousing services (hereafter “subcontractors”), commissioning them tostore and maintain our booms, oil skimmers, protective equipment and fire-fighting
equipment. We also provide them with education and training to maintain and improve
our response system.
2

MDPC needs to strengthen its partnership with its subcontractors at key ports and, inthe event of an incident, deal with maritime disasters on behalf of RPs while working
to build local community trust. As a professional maritime disaster response group,
MDPC is convinced that preparedness during normal times is critical to determining
the success of responses in times of emergency.
Learning from the responses to large-scale oil spills following the Great East Japan
Earthquake on March 11, 2011, at the end of March 2013 we expanded and developed
our bases in Kawasaki, Sakai-Senboku, and Kita-Kyushu to create disastercountermeasures depots. These three depots are equipped with everything from oil
spill clean-up equipment to lathes, tools, and easily transportable container offices, sothat clean-up activities can proceed self-sufficiently because, if port facilities sufferedmajor damage from a large-scale natural disaster, oil spill equipment in the damaged
port cannot be used and there are difficulties in obtaining goods required for clean-up
activities such as rope and tools.
On October 1, 2013, the status of MDPC changed from an independent administrative
agency to a general incorporated foundation. Over the 37 years we have built up ourcapability to respond to hazardous substance incidents, which is composed of threeskills of safety, firefighting and clean-up, and also equipment. Taking this opportunityof change in the MDPC’s status, we are preparing to provide our response capability todeal with hazardous substance disasters on land. We will continue honing our skills asa private disaster response organization so that we can be of use in emergencies.

II. Oil Spill Response: Current Status and Issues
1. Use of Dispersants—Timing and Misconceptions

In readiness for maritime disasters including oil spills and fires in coastal facilities,
MDPC has concluded Maritime Disaster Safety Service (MDSS) contracts with 197
petroleum- and chemical-related operators (as of January 1, 2014). This service is oneof the pre-contract services and includes advance planning and mobilization of MDPC’s
response teams when requested.
As part of this service, MDPC offers on-site training on effective deployment of oilbooms and use of booms improvised from ladders and adsorbents, etc.
3

The most common questions during such training concern dispersants. Many
participants have serious misunderstandings, believing that use of dispersants is
prohibited, or that their use requires permission from the Japan Coast Guard or thefishing industry.

Domestic law obligates all oil tankers, oil storage facilities and mooring facilities of acertain size to keep dispersant on hand. Dispersant is a chemical agent designated bylaw. Likely oil discharge amounts are prescribed by law depending on the size of the
facility, and 10–20% of the set amount is supposed to be removed by dispersants. For
this reason, the government treats dispersant as a legally designated material andsets extremely strict certification standards for dispersant types ( testing of
emulsification rates, aquatic toxicity, etc.).
Domestic law stipulates that chemical agents cannot be used for oil clean-up unlessthey are specified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) for
use for preventing pollution due to oil, etc. and compliant with technical standards
determined by ministry ordinance. The law also imposes penalties for infringements.
Thus the use of household detergents to remove oil floating on the sea is prohibited.
Given that dispersant is a legally designated chemical agent, can be used by a small
number of people and has an immediate effect, MDPC takes the following steps.
MDPC attends the oil spill incidents and instructs the ship’s captain, facility manager
or crew member to consider swiftly and correctly spraying dispersant as an effective
emergency measure to deal with oil discharge from pipelines or gutters, just like using
a fire extinguisher as the initial step in putting out a fire.

At oil spills in terminals and other facilities operated by a minimum number of
employees, it would take an hour, or 30 minutes at the very least, to deploy a boom.
Some employees would be tied up reporting to the relevant authorities, so only threepeople would be on site. In order to fulfill the legal requirement to take emergency
measures, we recommend correct spraying of dispersant on the immediately affected
area, such as the sea in front of the facility or around a grounded tanker, to protect
fishing facilities and coastlines.

4However, if it is confirmed that oil discharge is continuing and oil pollution is
spreading over a wide area, in other words expanding into public water s and thus
legally requiring clean-up measures to be taken, we fully consider the pros and cons ofspraying dispersant and discuss the matter with members of the liaison meeting . We
then have to decide on either full-scale clean-up tactics through spraying of dispersant,recovery tactics using mechanical skimmers, or a combination of both.
Oil from Sakhalin is transported by tanker through coastal waters off Hokkaido. Basedon a scenario where a large oil spill occurred in coastal waters off Northern Hokkaido,
which are a rich source of scallops, MDPC discussed possible responses with interested
parties from the public and private sectors over two years. During the discussions, weconsidered that although the mechanical recovery option is environmentally friendly,
it is difficult to secure vessels for the work and the area covered per unit of time ranges
from just 1/10 to 1/100 of the area coverable by the dispersant spraying option.
Conversely, although the dispersant spraying option has far higher coverage anddispersing rates per unit of time, damage caused by rumors relating to theintroduction of chemical agents to the marine environment is a concern.

The outcome of the discussions was that after considering the tra de-off between thetwo options, agreement was reached with the fishing industry on making dispersant
spraying the main tactic and setting rules for dispersant spraying, i.e., establishingzones, such as waters where spraying has already been approved and those where
spraying is to be discussed.

I hope that all those present here today will understand the correct methods forspraying dispersant and work to minimize damage.

2. Decontamination of Port Facilities

Large oil spills following the Great East Japan Earthquake have not been the only
difficult challenge MDPC has faced. Contamination of ports following oil spills hascaused some of our biggest past and present headaches. The most serious issue at suchsites is decontamination of port facilities including oiled docks and breakwaters.
Regardless of whether a spill comes from an onshore facility or a ship, the oil
discharged spreads rapidly and sticks to docks and berths where cargo handling was5due to take place. Oil then adheres to the hulls of ships that sail in and out of theharbor. If ships due to load or unload are kept waiting while oil sticking to docks isdecontaminated, an issue of compensation claims looms. However, if a ship is forcibly
held to dock, oil sticking to the docks adheres to its hull just like a stamp. If the shiploads, the worst outcome ensues. As you can imagine, oil adhering to its hull at thestart of the loading process has gone underwater once the ship is laden, and then fl oatsto the surface. If the ship sails out of harbor with oil adhered to it and continues its
journey, it spreads the pollution by dragging an oil slick. It is transformed into a newsource of oil pollution.
The first step of decontamination procedure for oil sticking to port facilities ispreparation. Oil booms and sorbent booms are deployed on the water where
decontamination is being carried out to prevent the spread of oil splashes. The second
step is spraying or application of dispersants. Generally the function of dispersants is
to disperse the layer of oil floating on the surface of the water, but in this case theirrole is to lift oil adhering to structures. Dispersants are not effective on floating layersof highly viscous oil, but in the case of dock decontamination it is possible to let
dispersants penetrate for 30 minutes or more. They are then blasted off withhigh-pressure seawater.
Ideally all of the dispersants sprayed or applied are effective on all of the oil adhering
to structures, and if the entire amount can be dispersed, the rest of the process can beleft to oil-decomposing bacteria and oxidative decomposition. However, some problems
arise here. The first is aversion to using dispersants. Unlike offshore clean-up
activities, where dispersants are sprayed as a clean-up option while emphasizing thetrade-off against other options, in port decontamination chemical agents are sprayedin the presence of the general public. Moreover, since the waters are shallow andenclosed within the port, it is particularly difficult to gain consensus from the fishingindustry.

Additionally, as a physical problem, since industrial water cannot be used as it would
be onshore, the high-pressure washers utilize seawater and impurities in the seawater
cause frequent nozzle blockages. This creates delays in the decontamination schedule,
affecting cargo work of ships scheduled to arrive on subsequent days.
So what do we do if we cannot reach a local community consensus on spraying or6

applying dispersants? Since no time can be lost in starting decontamination , we use ahigh temperature and high-pressure seawater to lift oil adhering to structures. As you
can imagine, we have trouble with the reliability of the water-heating boilers (due tothe swaying of the small vessels used for the work) and nozzle blockages.

3. Ship Decontamination: Use of Dispersants and Determination of Operation Zones

Decontamination work is not limited to port facilities such as concrete docks andbreakwaters. Whether large or small, ships oiled on their hulls while sailing throughpolluted waters, ships moored at the docks and ships used in clean-up operations allgive rise to the problem of decontamination.

Since oil adhering to any of these becomes a new source of pollution, we need tosystematically decontaminate their hulls as far as possible. Generally, the ideal
solution is to do this in waters where decontamination will have less environmental
and economic impact, considering both the efficiency and the safety of decontamination
operations.

The waters around industrial complexes located along the Pacific belt are the mostcongested area in Japan. Coastal fishing also flourishes in these waters, and in certain
seasons edible seaweed is cultivated in some places. If ships are decontaminated inwaters outside the port area of industrial complex, there is an extremely highprobability of secondary damage. However, if such work is conducted far out at sea,strong surface currents and difficulties with secure anchoring of the ships being
decontaminated make it impossible to ensure the safety of small vessels doing thework. At present, the only option is to spray or apply dispersant as the chemical agent
for lifting oil adhering to hulls. Given this situation, we have to struggle to obtainconsensus from the fishing industry.
As mentioned above, resolving “decontamination problems”—a term often heard
recently and the largest challenge which MDPC faces at pollution sites—has become
one of the big issues for MDPC.

7

III. A New Sensible Approach to the Issues

Prior to the Great East Japan Earthquake, MDPC resolved decontamination problems
on a site-by-site basis, but large-scale oil spills in ports during the disaster made itnecessary for us to establish fundamental solutions to such problems.

In collaboration with Neos Company Limited, from late 2012 we began research anddevelopment on an adhered oil remover.

Our ideal adhered oil remover would let the oil float after lifted, not like chemical
agents such as dispersant that disperses oil adhering to port facilities as it lifts it, sothat we could recover this floating oil with small skimmers . If we could develop suchchemical agent, it would be easier to gain consensus from port authorities , port users,
and the fishing industry. Moreover, if we could avoid the physical obstacles associatedwithhigh-temperature,high-pressure

washersusing

seawaterandcontinue

decontamination with easily obtainable normal-temperature, low-pressure seawater
pumps, we could implement efficient and effective decontamination plans.

You might think that simply using a dispersant as an adhered oil remover would savethe cost of recovering oil deliberately floated and processing recovered oily water.
However, judging on the basis of all the points I have talked about, including rejectionof the use of dispersants, pressure to recover oil not completely dispersed bydispersants, and complaints about secondary damage caused by dispersed oil, we
believe there are major benefits in recovering oil that has been lifted with adhered oilremover.
Although I am unable to go into further details due to confidentiality and patent issues,
I can confirm that our new remover meets the dispersant aquatic toxicity standards,
and that development of a new adhered oil remover that will lift and float adhered oil
is progressing smoothly. MDPC will set up a special committee to obtain knowledge
further from academic experts and specialists to start manufacturing it as early as
possible as a chemical agent that is not an agent legally required to be stockpiled while
meeting the MLIT standards for decontaminant agents used at sea, so that we can use
it for the decontamination activities at sea.
Thank you for your attention.
8