PROCEEDINGS OF

APEC WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE

AND PLANNING

25-26 March 2004

Singapore

APEC Marine Resource Conservation Working Group

June 2004
Sponsored by:

Department of State
United States of America

Organized by:

Minerals Management Service

United States of America

Maritime and Port Authority

Singapore

For:
Copyright © 2004 APEC Secretariat
APEC Secretariat
35 Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Singapore 119616
Tel: (65) 6775 6012
Fax: (65) 6775 6013
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.apec.org

APEC Publication Number: APEC# 204-MR-04.1

 Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................4

Agenda ...............................................................................................................................5

Annex 1: Directory of Specialists ......................................................................................7

Annex 2: Report of the APEC Workshop........................................................................19

Keynote Addresses

Opening Remarks, Lui Tuck Yew, Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority of
Singapore .........................................................................................................................22

Opening Remarks, Frank L. Lavin, Ambassador of the United States of America to the
Republic of Singapore......................................................................................................27

Panel Discussion on Cooperation between Government and Industry

Summary ..........................................................................................................................28
Presentation by James Lane, MMS..................................................................................29

Presented Papers

Recent U.S. Oil Spill Response Research Results, Joseph Mullin, MMS.......................33

Current Testing, Training and Research at the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT), James Lane, MMS ..........................................75

Current State of the Art in Oil Spill Response Technology and Recent Research Results -
Alternative Response Measures in the Pacific Region, H. Yew Weng, EARL.............124

Current State of the Art in Oil Spill Response Technology and Recent Research Results -
Alternative Response Measures in the United States Offshore, Douglas O’Donovan,
MSRC ............................................................................................................................130

Panel Discussion on Assessment of Current State of Practice in Spill Response,

Existing Plans to Upgrade Response Capability, and Recommendations

David Baird, Australia ...................................................................................................215

Eka Sukmawati, Indonesia.............................................................................................221
Uk Kim, Korea...............................................................................................................234
Gedisa Kone, Papua New Guinea..................................................................................241
Scott Hartley, United States of America........................................................................248
Kalsom Abdul Ghani, Malaysia.....................................................................................277

Closing Remarks, Chua Lian Ho, Director, Training Division, MPA...........................289

Closing Remarks, Ralph Ainger, Chief, Office of External Affairs, MMS...................290

Closing Remarks, Kathy Bentley, International Relations Officer for Pacific Oceans
Affairs, DOS ..................................................................................................................293
 PREFACE

APEC WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND PLANNING

SINGAPORE

MARCH 25-26, 2004

Recalling that in 1996 the APEC Leaders affirmed “the central role of the business sector
in the APEC Process” and the Marine Resources Conservation (MRC) Working Group
adopted an Action Plan for the Sustainability of the Marine Environment that identifies
three central tools to meet its objectives: research, exchange of information, technology
and expertise; capacity building, training and education; public and private sector
participation and partnership.

Recognizing that this APEC Workshop in Singapore was approved by the APEC Marine
Resources Conservation Working Group at its May 2001 meeting in Hong Kong;

Recalling the recommendation of the APEC Workshop on Assessing and Maintaining the
Integrity of Existing Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities, held in Beijing, China, in 2000 to
consider a workshop that addresses the state of the art technologies and methodologies
available worldwide for rapid response to oil spills from ship accidents as well as from
offshore oil production facilities; and

Noting that the APEC Workshop provided for an exchange of views among APEC
economies on oil spill response and planning.

The APEC Workshop identified issues and made recommendations for improvements
within each participating Economy.
 AGENDA

ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION

WORKSHOP

Oil Spill Response and Planning

March 25-26, 2004

Singapore

Thursday, March 25, 2004

8:15 REGISTRATION

9:00 Welcome Remarks - RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, Chief Executive, Maritime and
Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore

9:10 Welcome Remarks - Mr. Frank L. Lavin, Ambassador of the United States to the
Republic of Singapore

9:20 Panel Discussion on Cooperation between Government and Industry - Chair, Ms.
Kathy Bentley, U.S. Department of State (DOS) - Representatives from MPA,
East Asia Response Ltd. (EARL), Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), Exxon-Mobil

10:40 Tea Break

11:00 Recent U.S. oil spill response research results – Joseph Mullin, MMS

11:30 Presentation on current testing, training and research at OHMSETT, the U.S.
National Oil Spill Response Test Facility – James Lane, MMS

12:00 Lunch – Hosted by the United States

2:00 Current State of the Art in Oil Spill Response Technology and Recent Research
Results - Alternative Response Measures in the Pacific Region, Ho Yew Weng,
EARL

2:30 Current State of the Art in Oil Spill Response Research Results - Alternative
Response Measures in the United States Offshore, MSRC.

3:00 Tea Break

3:20 Panel discussion on Assessment of Current State of Practive in Spill Response,
Existing Plans to Upgrade Response Capability, and Recommendations - Chair,
Mr. Joseph Mullin, MMS - Representatives from Australia, Indonesia, Korea,
Papua New Guinea, United States

4:50 Conclusions and Summary - Ms. Kathy Bentley, DOS

5:00 Closing Remarks - Chua Lian Ho, Director (Training), MPA

5:10 Closing Remarks - Mr. Ralph Ainger, Chief, Office of External Affairs, MMS

5:20 Closing Remarks - Ms. Kathy Bentley, International Relations Officer for Pacific
Oceans Affairs, DOS

5:30 Reception - Hosted by the MPA

Friday, March 26, 2004

8:20 Assemble in lobby of Shangri-La Hotel

9:15 Site visit at the EARL facility

11:30 Site visit at the Integrated Simulator Centre (ISC)

12:45 Depart ISC for Shangri-La Hotel

 ANNEX I

DIRECTORY OF SPECIALISTS

AUSTRALIA

Mr. David Baird

General Manager
Emergency Response
GPO Box 2181
Canberra City ACT 2601
Tel: +61 2 6279 5700
Fax: +61 2 6279 5757
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Paul Nelson

Manager, Environment Protection Standards
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
GPO Box 2181, Canberra City Act.
Tel: +61 2 62795040
Fax: +61 2 62795026
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Tracey Baxter

Operations and Administration Co-ordinator
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
GPO Box 2181
Canberra City ACT 2601
Tel: +61 2 6279 5952
Fax: +61 2 6279 5757
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. WJ (Ivan) Skibinski

Manager
Australia Marine Oil Spill Centre
P O Box 305, North Shore, Vic.3214
Tel: +61 0 3 52721555
Fax: +61 0 3 52721839
E-mail: [email protected]
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

Mr. Basza Alexzandar Bin Haji Basri

Marine Officer
Marine Department
Ministry of Communication
Seraas, Muara,
Brunei BT 1728
Tel: (0673) 277 1347 TO 277 1353
Fax: (0673) 277 1357
E-mail: [email protected]

Supt. Azahari Bin Hj. Awg Besar

Office Commanding of Marine Police
Royal Brunei Police Force
Tel: 673-277 2391
Fax: 673-277 3829
Mobile: 673-876 9860

HONG KONG

Mr. Yu Wah, Adam Lai

General Manager/Services
Marine Department
23/F., Harbour Building, 38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong
Tel: 852 2852 4451
Fax: 852 2545 1535
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Melvin Tsang

General Manager
Hong Kong Response Limited
Esso Tsing Yi Terminal
Lot 46 Tsing Yi Road
Tsing Yi Island, N.T.,
Hong Kong
Tel: 852 2434 3338
Fax: 852 2434 0444
E-mail: [email protected]
INDONESIA

Mrs. Eka Sukmawati

Assistant Director Guard and Rescue
Ministry of Communication
Directorate General of Sea Communication
Departemen Perhubungan Gedung Karya Lt. 12,
Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 8, Jakarta 10110
Tel: 62 21 3505687
Fax: 62 21 3505705
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Imam Soeseno

Researcher (Environmental Management Specialist)
Institute of Natural and Regional Resources (Bogor)
INRR Workshop
Pandan Asri C-5/8, Kemang, Bogor 16310
Tel: +62 251 503694
Fax: +62 251 501287
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Bambang Sutrisna S.S.

Directorate General of Sea Communication
Jl. Pejambon III Rt. 04/01 No.13
Kel. Gambir Jakarta Pusat
Jakarta 10110
Tel: 021-3440280

KOREA

Mr. Uk Kim
Manager of Response Team, Response Division
Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation
7th Fl. Dongshin Bldg., 543 Togok-Dong, Kangnam-Gu, 135-270 Seoul
Tel: +82 2 3498 8582
Fax: +82 2 3498 8687
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Hong Suk Ho

Assistant Manager
Korea Marine Pollution Response Corp
Assistant Manager
Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation
528-1, Daejuk-Ri, Daesan-Eup, Seosan-Si, Korea
Tel: 82 41 664 9101
Fax: 82-41-664-9104
Mobile: 011-9004-9101
E-mail: [email protected]
MALAYSIA

Capt. Adrian H Carvalho

Head, Vetting Dept, MISC BHD
L20, Menara Dayabumi, Jalan Sultan Hisahmuddin, 50050 KL Malaysia
Tel: 03-22752667
Fax: 03-22736602/2039
E-mail: [email protected]

Capt. Mohd Azmi Ahmad

Manager ISM Doc and Training
HSSEC Dept, MISC Berhad
L14, Menara Dayabumi, Jln Sultan Hishamuddin, 50050 KL Malaysia
Tel: 03-22752348
Fax: 03-22752437
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Kalsom Abdul Ghani

Director
Department of Environment Selangor
Tingkat 12-14, Wisma SunwayMas
Jln. Tengku Ampuan Zabedah C9/C
Seksyen 9, 40100 Shah Alam
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Tel: 03-55194787
Fax: 03-55190711
DL: 03-55194788
E-mail: [email protected]

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr. Gedisa Kone

Environmental Officer
Department of Petroleum and Energy
P.O. Box 1993, Port Moresby, NCD 121
Tel: 675 322 4319
Fax: 675 322 4222
E-mail: [email protected]

SINGAPORE

Mr. Sofian Bin Juman

Port Captain
Petrojaya Marine Sdn Bhd
190 Middle Road #15-06 Fortune Centre S(188979)
Tel: 68832066
Fax: 68832010
E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Looi Keen Wai
Regional Sales Manager
Transas Marine Pacific
750C Chai Chee Road, #04-07, Technopark@Chai Chee S(469003)
Tel: 64433061
Fax: 64433025
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Roger Krueger

Emergency Preparedness & Response Advisor
Exxon Mobil. AP Pte Ltd
18 Pioneer Road S(628498)
Tel: 96616093
Fax: 62664418
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Colin Chee

Assistant Public Affairs Manger
Public Affairs Shared Services Centre
ExxonMobil AP Pte Ltd.
1 HarbourFront Place
#06-00 HarbourFront Tower One
Singapore 098633
Tel: +65 68858279
Fax: +658858292
E-mail: [email protected]

Teo Ying Zhuang Samantha

Civil Engineer
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
Engineering Dept, 460 Alexandra Road PSA Building #20-00 S119963
Tel: 63751705
Fax: 63751685
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Lui Sit Pui

Higher Technical Officer
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
Engineering Dept, 460 Alexandra Road PSA Building #20-00 S119963
Tel: 63751706
Fax: 63751685
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Maung Nyi Nyi

Project Officer (for Bunker Fuel)
Maritime Research Centre, Nanyang Technological University
Blk N1, #01b-49, 50, Nanyang Aveune Singapore 639798
Tel: 65 67904100
Fax: 65 67910676/67921650
E-mail: [email protected]
RAdm. (NS) Lui Tuck Yew
Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
#18-00 PSA Building
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 6375 1889
Fax: 65 62759247
Email: [email protected]

Capt. Khong Shen Ping

Director, Port Division
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
#18-00 PSA Building
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 6375-1618
Fax: 65 6375-1685
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Edwin Leong

Executive Officer
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
PSA Building #17-04
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 63751209
Fax: 65 63751900
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Chua Lian Ho

Director of Training Division
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
PSA Building #17-04
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 63751918
Fax: 65 63751900
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Lee Kok Kee

Assistant Director
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
PSA Building #17-04
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 63751208
Fax: 65 63751900
E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Lee Seng Kong
Senior Director
Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore
460 Alexandra Road
PSA Building #21-00
Singapore 119963
Tel: 65 63756202
Fax: 65 63772419/63756231
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Declan O’Driscoll

Chief Executive Officer
East Asia Response Limited
No. 2 Jalan Samulun
Tel: +65 6266 1566
Fax: +65 6266 2312
Mobile: +65.97574171
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://www.earl.com.sg

Mr. Ho Yew Weng

Operations Manager
East Asia Response Limited Global Alliance
No. 2 Jalan Samulun
Tel: +65 6266 1566
Fax: +65 6266 2312
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Ng Lak Seng

Senior Fire & Security Officer
Singapore Refining Company Pte Ltd
1 Merlimau Road, Jurong Island
Singapore 628260
Tel: 68677580
Fax: 63570167
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Hong Kim Pong

Chief Fire & Security Officer
Petrochemical Corporation of Singapore
100 Ayer Merbau Road
Singapore 628277
Tel: 68672100
Fax: 68672261
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Ng Wee Kin
Marine Fuel Trader
Total France (Singapore Branch)
101 Thomson Road #11-01/02 United Square Singapore 307591
Tel: 90300126
Fax: 63564256
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Ng Wee Hong Dennis

Fire Officer
Petrochemical Corporation of Singapore
100 Ayer Merbau Road, SIngapore 628277
Tel: 68672102
Fax: 68672261
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Koh Soon Chuang

Senior Fire & Security Officer
Seraya Chemicals Singapore (Pte) Ltd
61, Seraya Avenue, Jurong Isalnd, SIngapore 627879
Tel: 66618581/2
Fax: 66618684
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Cheng Chye Peng

Oil Movements Co-ordinator
Singapore Refining Co Pte Ltd
1 Merlimau Road, Singapore 628260
Tel: 63570121
Fax: 68677148
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Pavel Tkalich

Senior Research Fellow
Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI), NUS
14 Kent Ridge Road, NUS, Singapore 119223
Tel: 68748972
Fax: 68724067
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Chris Richards

SOSRC Manager
Singapore Oil Spill Response Centre
59, Shipyard, Jurong, Singapore 628143
Tel: 62650177
Fax: 62644190
E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Philip Marsh
SOSRC operations Superintendent
Singapore Oil Spill Response Centre
59, Shipyard, Jurong, Singapore 628143
Tel: 62650177
Fax: 62644190
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Mohammed Rizal Bin Zainal

Marine Superintendent
Sinanju Tankers Pte Ltd
70 Anson Road #25-00
Apex Tower
Singapore 079905
Tel: +65 3249866
Fax: +652277905
DID: +653249852
Mobile: +6590118040
E-mail: [email protected]

TAIWAN

Dr. Chiau Wen-Yan

Associate Professor
National Sun Yat-Sen University
70, Lien-Hai Road
Kaohsiung City 804
Tel: 886-7-5255166
Fax: 886-7-5255167
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Eilif Wang

Director
Association of Oil Pollution Control
2F, #222, Young-chi Road Taipei, Taiwan
Tel: 886-2-27681255
Fax: 886-2-2953-3239
E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Richard Tatner

Operations Manager
Oil Spill Response Limited Global Alliance
Lower William Street, Southhampton
SO145QE UK
Tel: +44 23 8033 1551
Fax: +44 23 8033 1972
E-mail: [email protected]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

His Excellency Mr Frank L Lavin

Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of Singapore
(Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary)
27 Napier Road
Singapore 258508
Tel: 64769100
Fax: 64769340
Website: www.usembassysingapore.org

Mr. James Lane

Physical Scientist
Offshore Minerals Management
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Tel: 703-787-1065
Fax: 703-787-1549
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Joseph Mullin

Physical Scientist
Offshore Minerals Management
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Tel: 703-787-1556
Fax: 703-787-1549
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Ralph Ainger

Chief, Office of External Affairs
Offshore Minerals Management
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Tel: 703-787-1461
Fax: 703-787-1284
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Mary Ann Milosavich

International Programs Specialist
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden Street
Herndon, Virginia 20170
Tel: 703-787-1231
Fax: 703-787-1284
E-mail: [email protected]
Ms. Kathy Bentley
International Relations Office for Pacific Oceans Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Tel: 202-647-3883
Fax: 202-647-9099
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Douglas O’Donovan

Technical Services Manager
Marine Spill Response Corporation
220 Spring Street, #500
Herndon, Virginia 22170
Tel: 703-326-5611
Fax: 703-326-5660
E-mail: [email protected]

Capt. Scott E. Harley

Commander, National Strike Force
United States Coast Guard
National Strike Force Coordination Center
1461 N. Road Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909-3241
Tel: 252 331 6000 ext 3008
Fax: 252 331 6012
Email: [email protected]

Capt. James Garrett

Commander Far East
United States Coast Guard

Capt. Michael Blair

Commander Far East (Perspective)
United States Coast Guard

Lieutenant Commander Glenn Martineau, Supervisor, MIDNET Singapore

USCG MIDNET Singapore
PSC 470 Box 2050
FPO AP 96534
Tel: 65 6750-2449/2627
Fax: 65 6750-2357
E-mail: [email protected]
VIETNAM

Mr. Nguyen Quang Hung

Director Assistant
Dept. of Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
Research Institute for Marine Fisheries
170 Lelai, Haiphong
Tel: 0084 31 836 135
Fax: 0084 31 836 812
E-mail: [email protected]
 ANNEX II

REPORT OF THE APEC WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE

MARCH 25-26, 2004

SINGAPORE

The APEC workshop on Oil Spill Response and Planning was held in
Singapore. Participants attending the meeting are shown in Annex I.

The workshop was the product of the APEC Marine Resources Conservation
Working Group. It supports the APEC Action Plan on Sustainability of the
Marine Environment, drawn up by APEC economy members, which calls
for developing integrated approaches to coastal management; prevention,
reduction and control of marine pollution and sustainable management of
marine resources.

The workshop was sponsored by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and
organized by the U.S. Minerals Management Service and the Maritime and
Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore. The workshop was designed to
improve oil spill response capabilities in the Pacific Region by improving
standards in response planning, equipment, methods, operations and
training. Participants identified state-of-the-art technologies and
methodologies available worldwide and were encouraged to increase
cooperation among the APEC Economies.

The workshop was scheduled to immediately follow the International

Chemical and Oil Pollution Conference and Exhibition (ICOPCE) organized
by the MPA. of Singapore. The ICOPCE 04 Conference was held on March
22 and 23 and the Singapore Maritime Exhibition on March 24. The
ICOPCE conference addressed issues concerning conventions and
regulations affecting the oil and chemical industries, pollution prevention,
liability and compensation and recovery. Participants who attended both
events were offered the broad overview provided by an international
conference and the focussed discussions of a workshop.
The APEC Workshop participants were welcomed to Singapore by RAdm.
Lui Tuck Yew, Chief Executive of the MPA and by Mr. Frank Lavin,
Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Singapore.

Following the welcome remarks, Ms. Kathy Bentley, International Relations

Office for Pacific Oceans Affairs, DOS, chaired a panel discussion on
cooperation between government and industry. Panel members included
Capt. Muhammad Segar, MPA, Mr. Richard Tatner, Oil Spill Response
Limited Global Alliance, Capt. Scott Hartley, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
Mr. James Lane, MMS, Mr. Douglas O’Donovan, Marine Spill Response
Corporation (MSRC), and Mr. Roger Krueger, Exxon Mobil.

Each member briefly described the responsibilities of his organization and

the spill response program in place in his country. Discussion covered
established models, regulations, responsibility for spills, mystery spills,
funding of cleanup, and certification of response companies. The overall
consensus was that responders must have a plan and they must be prepared
before a spill occurs. It was also agreed that preparedness requires a
collaborative effort with all stakeholders.

The morning session include a presentation by Mr. Joseph Mullin, Physical

Scientist, MMS, on recent U.S. oil spill response research results. He was
followed by Mr. James Lane, Physical Scientist, MMS who presented a
paper on current testing, training and research at the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT).

Following lunch, Mr. Ho Yew Weng, Operations Manager, East Asia

Response Limited (EARL), discussed the current state of the art in oil spill
response technology and recent research results in Singapore. Mr. Douglas
O’Donovan, Technical Services Manager, Marine Spill Response
Corporation, then presented a paper on current state of the art and recent
research results in the United States.

After the break, Mr. Joseph Mullin chaired a panel discussion on assessment
of current state of practice in spill response, existing plans to upgrade
response capability and recommendations. Panel members included Mr.
David Baird, General Manager of Emergency Response of Australia; Mrs.
Eka Sukmawati, Assistant Director of Guard and Rescue of Indonesia; Mr.
Uk Kim, Manager of Response Team of Korea; Ms. Kalsom Abdul Ghani,
Director, Department of Environment Selangor of Malaysia; Mr. Gedisa
Kone, Environmental Officer of Papua New Guinea; and Captain Scott
Hartley, Commander of the National Strike Team, United States Coast
Guard. Copies of their presentations are provided in these Proceedings.

Ms. Kathy Bentley, DOS provided a summary and conclusions noting that
participants in the workshop have a wide array of expertise and experience
in oil spill response and planning and that by working together to share
information and to improve their response capabilities, they can further the
goals of the APEC Action Plan. All participants stressed the need to
cooperate on a regional and international level. Some APEC members
already have formal regional agreements to work together in combating oil
spills and some have adopted international conventions and guidelines.

Closing remarks were delivered by Mr. Chua Lian Ho, Director of the
Training Division of MPA, Mr. Ralph Ainger, Chief of the External Affairs
Office of MMS, and Ms. Kathy Bentley of DOS.
WELCOME REMARKS BY RADM(NS) LUI TUCK YEW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE,
MARITIME AND PORT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (MPA), AT THE APEC
WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND PLANNING ON 25 MARCH 2004
AT THE SHANGRI-LA, SINGAPORE

Your Excellency, Mr Frank Lavin, United States Ambassador to Singapore,

distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a very good morning to all of you.

It is a great pleasure for me to join you this morning at the Workshop on Oil Spill

Response and Planning jointly organised by the United States Minerals Management

Service and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. Allow me to first extend a

warm welcome to all participants who are here today, especially those who have

come from abroad and to wish you a pleasant and enjoyable stay in Singapore.

We are pleased to be able to jointly organise this workshop with the United States’

Minerals Management Service. This workshop will update us on the latest

approaches and technologies adopted by maritime nations in preventing and

combating oil spills. It is a subject to which we, in Singapore, attach great

importance, and I trust that the discussions and sharing of knowledge and

techniques at this workshop will be meaningful and rewarding.

Last year, we recorded some 135,000 vessel calls in Singapore, totalling 986 million

gross tons. The narrow waters of the Singapore Strait in the midst of one of the

busiest shipping lanes in the world dictate that we must be especially vigilant since a

major maritime accident in this vicinity could significantly disrupt shipping traffic

resulting in serious repercussions for the world’s economy. Hence, we view the

potential of maritime incidents seriously and have put in place comprehensive

measures to enhance security and navigational safety as well as well-tested

procedures to clean up oil and chemical spills should they occur.

I will leave the topic of maritime security to another occasion. On measures to

enhance safety of navigation in the narrow and busy straits of Malacca and

Singapore and in our port waters, we have introduced several measures. To

enhance the coverage and effectiveness of the state-of-the-art radar-based Vessel

Traffic Information System (VTIS), which has been in place since 1990, we have

added 2 more radars to the existing network of 9 radars. 3 more Automatic

Identification System (AIS) base stations will also be added by July 2004 to the

existing 2 AIS base stations to help enhance the safety of navigation. The integration

of the AIS transponder system with the VTIS, and the use of the Differential Global

Positioning System enable MPA to identify and track ships for all AIS-equipped ships

calling at Singapore.

Quality training is also an important feature to enhance navigational safety. Our

Integrated Simulation Centre established in 2002, and run on a not for profit basis, is

now widely used by the maritime community for high-end individual and team

training. It has contributed immensely to equip mariners with the right mindset and

skill set to respond to contingencies. Such training is an on-going aspect of the

aviation industry and a key contributor to aviation safety. Pilots are put through

stringent tests on a regular basis and the renewal of their flying licence depends in

part on how well they perform in such examinations ashore. Is there something here

that we can learn from the aviation industry?

Even with the best preventive measures, accidents happen with some resulting in

pollution. MPA takes a co-ordinated approach towards combating pollution. MPA has

developed a Marine Emergency Action Procedure to deal with various types of

marine emergencies such as collisions, groundings and oil and chemical pollutions.

Depending on the severity of the marine emergencies, a host of public and private

sector organisations such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, oil companies and

the local oil spill response companies such as East Asia Response Private Limited

(EARL) and the Singapore Oil Spill Response Centre (SOSRC) will be called upon to

assist MPA in dealing with the marine emergencies. To enhance our readiness to

combat oil and chemical spills, we carry out yearly exercises on our Oil Spill

Contingency Plan and the Chemical Contingency Plan.

The use of MPA’s Oil Spill Model is another important factor for MPA to successfully

combat oil spill operations. Using a sophisticated and proven model to provide hourly

updates on wind direction, tidal currents, and other aerial and ground inputs to track

the movement of oil, we are able to accurately predict the movement of spilled oil,

thereby allowing us to effectively deploy anti-pollution craft and equipment to

expedite clean up operations.

The regular exercises and the Oil Spill Model helped us to manage two major oil spill

clean-up operations. The EVOIKOS (in 15 Oct 1997) and NATUNA SEA (in 3 Oct

2000) oil spills were successfully cleaned up by the MPA with assistance from the

entire community. The “EVOIKOS” spilled some 28,500 tonnes of marine fuel oil

after colliding with another supertanker. This is a significant volume, especially so

given the close proximity to shore. These accidents happened despite advance
warnings from the Singapore Vessel Traffic Information Service. During both these

incidents, the shipping traffic was unaffected and the tourist resorts and the shore

marine facilities remained open for business. The total clean-up cost and damages

were of the order of $15 million.

Another key component in the prevention and combat of oil spill is the use of

legislation. Singapore has acceded to the IMO's Oil Pollution Preparedness,

Response and Co-operation Convention in March 1990. We have also acceded to

the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by

Hazardous and Noxious Substances in October 2003. This OPRC-HNS Protocol

aims to facilitate international co-operation and mutual assistance in preparing for

and responding to HNS pollution incidents and to encourage states to develop and

maintain adequate capabilities to deal with HNS pollution emergencies. To give

effect to the OPRC-HNS Protocol in Singapore, a new set of regulations will be

introduced in April 2004 although the protocol has yet to come into force worldwide.

Ensuring that Singapore remains one of the world’s busiest port and a major hub

port is critical in MPA’s continuing drive to develop Singapore as an International

Maritime Centre. Although we have done well in the area of oil spill response and

planning, we cannot sit back and rest on our laurels. MPA can count on an

experienced and tested team. We must however continue to improve on our

preparedness and response to ensure the safety of navigation, the prevention of oil

pollution and effectively manage and combat any future oil spill incidents to avert a

major catastrophe.
On this note, I wish all of you will have a fruitful and interesting day ahead.

Thank you.
 OPENING REMARKS

AMBASSADOR FRANK LAVIN

Thanks for that introduction Kathy. And thank you Rear Admiral Lui for Singapore's hosting and
co-sponsoring this workshop with the United States.

It is good to see so many representatives here today from APEC economies and from the
petroleum industry. For this is a true transnational issue, and it is a public-private issue as well.
It is these two themes - cross-border and cross-sector -- that I would like to leave with you today.

As to the transnational point, the business of transporting petroleum and chemicals is about as
globalized as you can get. I am reminded of the vessel Prestige, which sank off the coast of
Spain in November 2002. Here was a Liberian tanker, registered in the Bahamas, managed in
Greece, and chartered by a company in Switzerland. The oil spilled affected primarily the
Spanish coast, but the effects on bird populations went beyond Spain. One of the sad lessons of
this episode was that a ship in distress was turned away by authorities in Spain and Portugal
because it represented a risk. As a result the ship broke apart on the high seas, resulting in a far
greater environmental disaster. The Prestige could go on leaking its remaining cargo of 20
million gallons - approximately twice what the Exxon Valdez spilled in Alaska - until the year 2006
or beyond.

The public-private point is worth reflecting on as well. Regulators need to work with industry,
which often has useful ideas and procedures in place. Industry realizes that spills represent an
economic loss. By keeping in regular discussion with industry, regulators can devise approaches
that are realistic and respect commercial logic.

For its part, industry also needs to work with the regulators. All of our citizens want a safe and
clean environment. If industry does not respond to this fundamental law of human nature, they
put their operations in jeopardy. What country can host a company that puts the environment at
risk?

The point is that good prevention and response strategies can cut down on the costs of an oil
spill. But no one country working alone, nor governments nor the private sector by themselves,
can mount effective prevention and response efforts. In the case of the Prestige, lack of
accountability turned a manageable bad situation into an unmanageable catastrophe.

This workshop has an important role to play in bringing authorities and the private sector
together to identify best practices that we can then shape into our own local prevention and
response strategies. We are all here to share ideas because we understand that there is no
competitive advantage to keeping response measures secret.

APEC members include some of the leading oil refiners, shippers, and processors as well as the
world's largest fleets and most vital sea lanes. There is no more appropriate gathering of talent
and necessity to tackle this issue. Ladies and gentlemen, the United States is glad to join
Singapore in co-sponsoring this conference. I wish you every success in your mission.

Thank you.
 SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSION
ON COOPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

Ms. Kathy Bentley, International Relations Office for Pacific Oceans

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, chaired a panel discussion on cooperation
between government and industry. Panel members included Capt.
Muhammad Segar, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), Mr.
Richard Tatner, Oil Spill Response Limited Global Alliance, Capt. Scott
Hartley, United States Coast Guard (USCG), Mr. James Lane, Minerals
Management Service (MMS), Mr. Douglas O’Donovan, Marine Spill
Response Corporation (MSRC), and Mr. Roger Krueger, Exxon Mobil.

Each member briefly described the responsibilities of his organization and

the spill response program in place in his country. Most countries have
established models indicating industry responsibility and government
oversight.

Audience questions spurred discussion of regulations, responsibility for

spills, mystery spills, funding of cleanup, certification of response
companies, and problems with customs laws regarding movement of
equipment. The overall consensus was that responders must have a plan
(both national and company) and they must be prepared before a spill
occurs. It was suggested that regional responders participate in each other’s
drills. Singapore and Indonesia already have a formal agreement to
cooperate on oil spill response. Australia and has similar agreements. All
agreed that preparedness requires a collaborative effort and that all
stakeholders must be included in planning.
 PANEL DISCUSSION ON

COOPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

PRESENTATION BY

JAMES LANE

U.S. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

MMS National OCS Oil Spill Program
„ Prevention
– Regulations
– Inspections
„ Planning
– Spill Plans
– Organization
– Equipment
„ Preparedness
– Training
– Drills
– Inspections
„ Response
 Emergency Response – RP
Identification and Coordination
„ Location Databases
„ Attribute Databases
„ Mapping Capabilities
„ Spill Abatement
„ FOSC Coordination
Emergency Response – Event Management

„ ICS Integration
„ Risk Minimization
„ Pollution Prevention
„ Repair Procedures
„ Operational Status
 RECENT U.S. OIL SPILL RESPONSE

RESEARCH RESULTS

PRESENTATION OF

JOSEPH MULLIN

U.S. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

 Recent Results From
Oil Spill Response Research
Joseph V. Mullin
Program Manager, Oil Spill Response Research
U.S. Minerals Management Service
Dispersant Effectiveness Research
 In Situ Burning of Spilled Oil

Topics

• Research Burns
• Testing of Fire Resistant Boom
• In Situ Burning in Marsh Environments
 In Situ Burning Research Results

• Thickness is crucial.

•Efficiency depends on thickness

• Burning starts at 2-3mm.

• Burning rate is 3mm/min or 5,000 L per

m2 per day
 In Situ Burning Research Results

• Winds less than 20 knots, Waves less

than 1.2 m

• Water-in-oil emulsions detrimental

• Air emissions not a serious concern

• No aquatic toxicity
 In Situ Burning of Oil Spills
2 CD – Set
• Comprehensive collection of scientific information on in
situ burning as a response tool.

•Contains 350 technical documents and one hour of video

•All operational aspects of burning are covered in detail.

•Human health, safety and potential environmental

impacts are addressed

•MMS distributes this 2-CD set without charge

 PRESENTATION ON

CURRENT TESTING, TRAINING AND RESEARCH

AT THE

OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SIMULATED ENVIRONMENTAL TEST TANK (OHMSETT)

JAMES LANE

U.S. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

 Ohmsett
The National Oil Spill Response Test Facility

James Lane
APEC Workshop
Oil Spill Response & Planning

Singapore
March 25, 2004
 Ohmsett:
The National Oil Spill Response Test Facility

Tank dimensions
203 meters long
about 20 meters wide
about 2.4 meters deep

Holds 9.8 million liters of water

Tow bridge capable of speeds

up to 6.5 knots

Wave generator produces 3

wave types up to a meter high

Test full sized equipment and train

with oil - up to 5,700 liters per run
 Ohmsett History
• EPA built and operated from 1974 – 1989

• Returned to U.S. Navy in 1989

• Exxon Valdez spill occurred March 1989

• Passage as OPA of 1990

• MMS assigned management responsibility

• Renovation and Re-Opening in 1992

 Background
• Ohmsett is the technology demonstration test bed for the TAR Oil Spill
Response Research Program (OSRR).

• Funds to conduct MMS’s OSRR Program and to operate

Ohmsett are appropriated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, i.e.
potential polluters pay to fund research and Ohmsett (5 cent/bbl tax).

• Supports MMS objective of protecting marine environment by:

- improving oil spill response technology and equipment
- increasing responder effectiveness through realistic training

• Supports MMS approval process for oil spill contingency plans by

providing independent testing and evaluation data on equipment.
equipment
 Types of Testing
• Containment Boom • Viscous Oil Pumping
• Skimmers • In-situ Burning
• Sorbents • MORICE
• Research & Development • Dispersant Testing
• Emulsions and other oil properties • Remote Sensing
Improvements in Mechanical Containment & Recovery

• Increase in tow speeds for oil spill containment booms

• High speed skimming systems (>3 knots)

• About 90% of independent test

data on oil containment booms
and skimmers was collected at
Ohmsett

• First article testing of mechanical

equipment
Oil Emulsification Study
Viscous Oil Pumping System
Tests
 VOPS Components
Water
Injection
Flange

Removable
Ring for easy
Cleaning
Fire Boom Testing with Propane
 In-situ Burns
U Near full scale screening tests for the effectiveness & durability of
fire resistant oil containment booms
U Ability of boom exposed to fire to contain thick, hot oil & survive
extended exposure to wave action
U Propane flames produce a total heat flux to the surface in the range
of 110-130 kW/m2 and flame temperatures near 900 C°
U Underwater bubbler has a propane flow rate of 1500 kg/hr over a
water surface area of ~10m2, yielding a heat release rate of 2
MW/m2
U Compressed air injected near the base of the flame at a rate of 2900
kg/hr to enhance the combustion process and increase total heat
fluxes and flame temperatures
PROPANE BUBBLER SYSTEM

FLOATATION DEVICES

TEST SETUP
Propane Supply Tankers
Test of Oil Stop Blanket
MORICE Testing Program
January 14-25 2002
Oil has been added along the entire length
of the ice field prior to test initiation.
Dispersant Testing
 Oil Evaporation Setup

Evaporated or “weathered”
oil generated by bubbling air
through heated drums of oil

Weight of oil was monitored

during air sparging using a
weight scale and a drum lift
Elastic-American Marine
Neat Sweep Test
Training at Ohmsett
 Benefits of Training at Ohmsett

• Emphasis on practical hands-on use of response

equipment with oil and waves.

• Students review their performance

- Through video recording of each training session
- Using oil recovery effectiveness measurements

• Typically students improve their oil recovery

effectiveness by 80%

• Cost is $995 dollars US per student for a 5-day

introductory, management oriented class. Advanced
class emphasizing hands on exercises in tank and a
visit to a local spill cooperative is $1,300 US.

• USCG and BP Alaska training site of choice.

WWW.OHMSETT.COM
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE

TECHNOLOGY AND RECENT RESEARCH RESULTS -

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE MEASURES IN

THE PACIFIC REGION

PRESENTATION OF

HO YEW WENG

EAST ASIA RESPONSE LIMITED (EARL)

SINGAPORE
 Ho Yew Weng
Operations Manager

OSRL EARL Alliance

State of the art of technical

response to oil spills
6 Good news
– the problems are not
changing
6 Bad news
– neither are the
strategic solutions
6 But technical
developments are
taking place

2 APEC conference

Response Monitor and

evaluate
Strategies
Containment and
Dispersants Recovery

In-situ Burning
Shoreline
Protection

Shoreline Clean-up

3 APEC conference
 Surveillance and monitoring
6 Still most important facet
of response
6 Equipment
– Satellite imagery
• deterrent
• weather
• real time ability
• interpretation
– SLAR
• search system
– IR/ UV
• tactical response tool
– Mk 1 eyeball
• training
4 APEC conference

Satellite imagery
6 Ideal deterrent
– prosecution difficult
– identifying source
6 Footprint/ frequency
of passes
6 Time to receive
image
6 Impact of weather
6 Interpretation
5 APEC conference

Dispersant systems

6 Large Aircraft
– Nimbus

6 Small aircraft
– Cessna 406
– Bandeirante

6 APEC conference
 Nimbus

6 Modular spray system

– 12 ton capacity
– Rapid mobilisation
– Simplified operation

7 APEC conference

Small aircraft system #1

6 Cessna 406
6 1.2 ton payload
– based in UK North
Sea
6 200 knots

8 APEC conference

Small aircraft system # 2

6 Embraer
Bandeirante EMB
100 P2
6 2 ton payload
– based in West Africa
6 200 knots

9 APEC conference
 Containment and recovery
6 Heavy oil recovery
– major problem
6 Systems under
development to deal
with material
6 Mechanical in
operation
6 Pumping of material
is a major issue
10 APEC conference

Pumping of materials
6 Conducted by
USCG/ MMS
6 1,000,000 Cst oil
6 Range of pumps
tested
6 Water injection
6 Steam injection

11 APEC conference

Waste management
6 Still major hurdle
– Storage
– Segregation
– transfer
– treatment
– disposal
6 Limits recovery
operations
6 High costs

12 APEC conference
 Conclusions
6 Technology can solve technical
problems
6 Developments are being made
6 Equipment is being developed to deal
with specific problems

BUT……………….

13 APEC conference

Conclusions
Prevention Management

Technology alone
Training Planning
is not enough

Communication
Exercising

Co-operation

14 APEC conference

Thank you
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE

TECHNOLOGY AND RECENT RESEARCH RESULTS -

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE MEASURES IN

THE UNITED STATES OFFSHORE

PRESENTATION OF

DOUGLAS O’DONOVAN

MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORPORATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC
COOPERATION (APEC)

WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL

RESPONSE AND PLANNING

Singapore

March 25, 2004

 Presentation

“Current State of the Art in Oil Spill Response

Technology and Recent Research Results -
Alternative Response Measures in the United
States Offshore”

Douglas C. O’Donovan
Marine Spill Response Corporation
Technical Services Manager
United States Spill Response Philosophy
• Based on Oil Pollution Act 1990
• The private sector is responsible for response
and clean-up
• National Planning and response system
• A response plan shall identify, and ensure by
contract or other means approved by the
President the availability of private personnel and
equipment necessary to remove to the maximum
extent practicable a worst case discharge and to
mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of such a
discharge.
• In some parts of the world, Governments are the lead
response and clean-up agency.
U.S Spill Response Options

Containment &
Recovery
Dispersants

In-Situ Burning

Shoreline protection

Shoreline Clean-up
 Windows of Opportunity
Wave Height
(feet) (meters)
18 5.5
Natural Degradation and Dispersion
14 4.3

10 3.0
Mechanical
Recovery
6 1.8
Sea Dispersant
Conditions Application
4 1.2
In-Situ
Burning
2 0.6

0.5 0.2

0.25 0.1

10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1

Inches

10-2 10-1 Millimeters 1 10

Average Oil Thickness
Courtesy of A. Alen
Shoreline Impact - What you
Hope to Minimize!
Shoreline Clean-Up - A Major Effort
Shoreline Water-washing
Note the Wearing of Proper Personal
Protection Equipment (PPE)
 Things to Remember

• Various response tools are available

• Tools may be used in combination during a spill

• Each tool presents a variety of challenges

 CHALLENGES TO OIL SPILL RESPONSE
•• Weather
Weather
•• Recovery
Recovery Difficult
Difficult In
In Rough
Rough Seas
Seas or
or High
High Winds
Winds
•• Unsafe
Unsafe In
In Very
Very High
High Seas
Seas

•• Thousands
Thousands of
of Different
Different Crude
Crude Oils
Oils
•• Wide
Wide Range
Range ofof Properties
Properties

•• Crude
Crude Properties
Properties Constantly
Constantly Changing
Changing
•• Weathering
Weathering Effect
Effect

•• Remote
Remote Locations
Locations
•• No
No Immediate
Immediate Logistical
Logistical Support
Support

•• Wide
Wide Range
Range of
of Impacted
Impacted Habitats
Habitats
•• Rocky
Rocky Beaches
Beaches to
to Sensitive
Sensitive Marshes
Marshes

•• Very
Very Little
Little Daylight
Daylight During
During Winter
Winter
 MECHANICAL CONTAINMENT &
RECOVERY

• Three Primary Components

• Containment Boom

• Skimming/Recovery

• Temporary Storage
 Considerations for
Booming and Boom Selection
• Operating Constraints
• Wave height and wave steepness
• Current or towing speed
• Surface current strength
• Winds
• Visibility and darkness
• Water depth (inshore)
 Boom Limitations
1. Entrainment 4. Boom Submergence

• V > 0.7 - 1.0 kt • V > ~ 5 kt

Cause: Current too fast Cause: Currents too high

2. Drainage 5. Boom Planing Wind

Current
Cause: Skirt too
short for Cause: High wind and current
oil velocity
amount Wind and current direction
opposed
3. Splashover Tension line near waterline
L
H

• H > Freeboard
• H/L > ~1/10
Cause: Waves too high
 Oil Loss due to Excessive Flow

Excessive Flow
Oil Loss due to Drainage Failure

Drainage Failure
Containment at Source -
Reduces Spreading of Oil
Ocean Booming Techniques

U configuration V configuration

J configuration Single ship system

Skimming/Recovery
 Skimming Vessels
• Skimming vessels
• Oil Spill Recovery Vessels – larger vessels
designed for on-water /open ocean recovery

• Shallow Water Barges – smaller vessels

designed for in-shore and near-shore recovery

• Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems

(VOSS) – vessels modified to carry a skimmer
and some temporary storage to the response
scene
 Oil Spill Response Vessel (OSRV)

Design Characteristics
• Transrec skimmer
• Oil-water separators for continuous operations (15 ppm)
• Dedicated full-time navigation crew of six, berthing for 38
Inflating Containment Boom
 Transrec - 350 Open Ocean
Skimmer Ready for Deployment
Skimmer in Apex of J-Boom
Configuration
 Skimming Limitations
• Depending on the equipment used, mechanical
containment and recovery become hampered
when:
• current exceeds 0.75-1 knot,
• the wind is stronger than 20-25 knots,
• and/or wind-induced waves are higher than 4 to 6 ft.

• Some skimmers and transfer pumps are not

designed to handle viscous oils or products;
different skimmers are often needed for oils with
different viscosity.
Main Skimmer Types

• Weir

• Oleophilic

• Vacuum

• Mechanical
 Weir

weir edge

oil to storage
Desmi 250 Weir Skimmer
 Oleophilic Disc

scraper

oil to storage
Oleophilic Disc Skimmer

QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Drum Skimmer
Oleophilic Drum Skimmer
Oleophilic Brush Skimmer
Temporary Storage
Types of Temporary Storage Devices
• Barges
• Tank barges (large and small)
• Deck barges with deck tanks
• Hopper barges
• Supply boats with deck tanks

• Towable tanks
• Towable Storage Bladders
• Open tank “barges”
• Flat tanks

• Stationary tanks
• Purpose-built
• Open, frame-based pools, i.e., fast tank
• Open, inflatable pools
• General purpose
• 55-gal oil drums
• Pick-up or dump truck
• Plastic trash bags
• Pits (lined)
Oil Spill Response Barge

• Storage is key constraint on spill recovery

• Avoids relying on commercial barges
 Shallow Water Barge

• Ready-transportable on trailers or in-water

• Skimming, booming operations, hard-to-get-at areas
• 3 foot draft when fully laden
• 400 bbl storage
Mechanical Equipment Research

• Boom Deflectors

• Boom vane systems

• Fast water skimming systems

 Boom Deflector Systems

• A deflector is placed between each section of boom

and uses the force of the water to push the boom
out into the current and the shape of the boom is
maintained as long as a steady current continues.

• These devices deflect boom into the current at an

average angle of about 15 degrees at current
speeds of 0.5-1.5 meters/second (1-3 knots).
Boom Deflectors
 Boom Vane Systems

• Developed in Sweden based on the

trawl doors that fishermen use.

• The vane uses the hydrodynamic force

of the passing current to pull the boom
away from the shore.
Boom Vane
 Fast Water Skimmers

• Current Buster (from NOFI, Norway)

• During tests the Current Buster recovered

over 80% of the oil at speeds up to 3.5 knots.
Fast Water Skimmers
(Some units can recover oil at 5 knots)
Dispersants
 Dispersants
• What is a dispersant?
• Solvents - The solvent enables the surfactants (active
ingredients) to be applied and helps get them through
the oil film to the water interface.

• Surfactants - At the interface the surfactants reduce the

surface tension allowing the oil to enter the water as tiny
droplets that are degraded by natural bacteria.

• What does it do?

• Enhances natural dispersion by reducing the oil-water
‘interfacial tension’
• Redistributes oil into the water
Dispersant Dilution Action
Meters
Surface
.3
1.0

3.0

10.0
Dispersant Application
Techniques
 Current U.S. Dispersant
Aircraft Platforms

DC-4
2,000 gallon payload

C-130 w/ADDS PAC AT-802

5,000 gallon payload 800 gallon payload
OSRL Hercules with ADDS PAC
U.S.Air Force C-130 with MASS Kit
Helicopter Bucket Sprayer
 General Dispersant
Limitations
Time: Within 24-72 Hours*

Material Spilled: Viscosity less than 20,000 cs*

Sea State: >1 Beaufort and < 6 Beaufort

Water Depths: > 10 meters*

Distance Offshore: > 3 nautical miles*

Dispersant: On National Approved List

Dispersant Plan: Government Approvals
 Advantages
• Rapid response over large distances and areas is
possible
• Applicable in relatively rough weather
• Reduces the risk of contamination of birds and
shorelines
• May ‘break’ or inhibit the formation of emulsions
• Reduces recoverable waste
• Minimize Shoreline Stranding of Oil
• Minimize Contamination of Marshes, Mangroves
 Disadvantages

• Oil is not removed, but re-distributed

• Can adversely affect sensitive resources

• farmed fish, shellfish and coral reefs
• industrial water intakes

• “Window of Opportunity” for effective use

• Generally inappropriate in shallow water

Current Dispersant Research
• Dispersant effectiveness tests have been conducted to
provide qualitative assessment of the dispersibility of
heavy fuel oils using different dispersants and a range
of dispersant to oil (DOR) ratios

• Cold water dispersant research, particularly in Arctic

region.

• Developing standards for shipboard dispersing monitor

application system.

• Jet aircraft application

• Evaluating use of dispersants in shallow water

Testing Dispersants in Heavy Fuel Oil
In-Situ Burning
 Required Equipment
• Containment
• Specialized fire booms and boom towing
vessels
• Helicopter directing
• Ignition
• Helitorch or hand-held igniters
• Helicopter for aerial ignition
• Monitoring
• May be necessary to monitor smoke plume
 Operational Constraints
• Oil thickness is crucial. Minimum oil thickness
(~3mm) Burning starts at 2-3mm. Ends at 1-2mm

• Efficiency depends on thickness

• Winds < 20 knots, waves < 132 cm (4.3 feet)

• Presence of natural gas from blowout detrimental

• Daylight
 Types of Fire-Boom
• Stainless steel

• Fire-resistant fabrics; often these systems can

not be reused.

• New methodology using an active water-cooling

systems; these systems are designed to be
reused.

• All In-Situ Burn boom is rigorously tested under

approved protocols and operational conditions.
Deploying Water-Cooled Fire
Boom
Testing Fire Boom
Failed Fire-Boom Test
 Ignition Sources
• The ignition source is used to provide sufficient
heat to vaporize some of the oil to sustain burning.

• Helitorch - an incendiary device deployed from a

helicopter and drops a burning gelled gasoline
substance onto the area to be burned. A trained flight
crew is required.

• Other simple devices can also be used by trained

personnel.

• Oil-soaked rags or other sorbent material

• Road flares
Helitorch Igniter

Helitorch
Helitorch with Streaming Gel

Burn shot from

NOBO trials
Hand Igniters
 Simplified Burn Procedure
• Two vessels contain a patch of oil in fire-resistant boom.
Rule of thumb is to fill about 1/3 of the area inside the boom.

• The contained oil is towed away from the main body of oil.

• Ignite the oil inside the boom. It is best to tow into the wind
to help contain the oil and keep the smoke plume astern of
the towing vessels.

• The size of the burn can be controlled by the speed of the

tow. Slowing down or releasing one end of the boom will
reduce the thickness of the oil, allowing the burning to stop.

• This procedure can be repeated as often as necessary.

At Sea In-Situ Burn
Vessel In-Situ Burn
 Monitoring - The SMART
Process
• The smoke plume may contain particulates which might
have an impact on the general public.

• In the U.S. there is a monitoring process in place called

Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies
(SMART).

• This SMART monitoring is required if the particulates in

the smoke plume could reach the ground and impact
populated areas.
 Burning Trade-offs

Advantages Disadvantages
•Remove oil from surface •Smoke plume
•Reduce temporary storage •Secondary fires
•Relatively simple •Residue
•Fast •Permits
•Efficient
•Good areial coverage
 Current In-Situ Burn Research

• Application in cold water and broken ice,

particularly in Arctic region.
Testing in Ice
Waste Management
 Waste Generated from a Spill
• Recovered oil, emulsion, and oily water

• Oiled sand, gravel, soils

• Oiled debris, driftwood

• Oiled wildlife carcasses

• Oiled kelp, seaweed, etc.

 Other Wastes Generated from
Cleanup
• Oiled sorbents, plastic bags, protective clothing
• Rainwater runoff from waste storage areas
• Wash water - boat, boom, equipment, and gear cleaning
• Chemical drum cleaning water
• Decontamination site - wash waters / rinse waters
• Chemicals - lab, wildlife
• Anti-freeze, solvents, containers
• Used engine oils, hydraulic fluids, batteries
Generating Waste
Proper Disposal of Waste is Essential
 Responder Safety
• Health and safety, for both the general public and
responders, is of utmost importance. People and the
environment must be protected from the effects of an oil
spill, not harmed by one. General topics which must be
considered include:
• Management and communications
• Risk assessment
• Oil and Response chemical safety issues
• The working environment and safety during
operations
• Personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Management of Volunteers
 Reference Material
• American Petroleum Industry (API) Publications
• api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/ACF1B6.pdf
• Pollution Prevention
• Surface Water Research

• IPIECA Oil Spill Report Series

• www.ipieca.org/publications/oilspill.html

• World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products

• Technical data and guidelines on selection for all
types of response equipment
• Summaries of field and tank trials
• For information: SL Ross Environmental Research
[email protected]
 PAPERS PRESENTED AT

PANEL DISCUSSION ON ASSESSMENT OF

CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE IN SPILL RESPONSE,

EXISTING PLANS TO UPGRADE RESPONSE CAPABILITY AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Chair: Joseph Mullin, MMS

Papers by:
David Baird, Australia
Eka Sukmawati, Indonesia
Uk Kim, Korea
Gedisa Kone, Papua New Guinea
Scott Hartley, United States of America
Kalsom Abdul Ghani, Malaysia
Current State of Practice in Spill Response – Australia

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

David Baird
General Manager
Emergency Response
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Evolution

Australia’s National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other
Noxious and Hazardous Substances (the National Plan) commenced operation in
1973. The National Plan is an integrated Government and industry organisational
framework enabling effective response to marine pollution incidents. The
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) manages the National Plan, working
with State/Northern Territory (NT) governments and the shipping, oil, exploration
and chemical industries, emergency services and fire brigades to maximise
Australia's marine pollution response capability.

Since its inception, the National Plan has proven to be a robust and reliable
arrangement. When called into action, the National Plan has worked well and
provided both timely and effective response to pollution incidents, including
significant clean up operations following major spills such as Iron Baron (1995)
and Laura D’Amato (1999).

Major reviews of the management of the National Plan were conducted in 1978,
1993 and 2000; other reviews, post-incident and post-exercise, are also
undertaken with a view to improving future responses.

International Framework

Australia was one of the first countries to adopt the International Convention on
Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (OPRC). A
primary purpose of the Convention is to focus the world's response capability on
the problem so all nations will benefit.

The National Plan implements many of Australia's obligations as a signatory to

the Convention. For a major oil spill Australia may need to call upon overseas
assistance from international stockpiles at Singapore or Southampton (UK).
Provision is made for the speedy entry of equipment and personnel from
overseas.

Australia is a signatory to the International Convention relating to Intervention on

the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969, as amended, and
considers this convention to be particularly important in any major incident. The
broad powers provided by the Convention have been delegated to AMSA, with
the exception of the power to sink or destroy a ship, which remains with the
Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Australia is also a signatory to the International Convention on Salvage 1989,
and has recently developed National Maritime Place of Refuge Risk Assessment
Guidelines. These Guidelines reflect guidelines recently adopted by the IMO
Assembly and were developed to assist Australian maritime administrations, ship
Masters and the maritime industry in identifying:

• places of refuge in circumstances where an emergency cannot be dealt

with at sea; and
• the appropriate procedures to access a place of refuge.

Division of Responsibility

The Inter-Governmental Agreement provides that agencies responsible for

responding to marine spills in Australia are:

• at oil or chemical terminals, oil exploration rigs, platforms and pipelines - the
relevant oil or chemical company, with assistance from Government
agencies, as required;

• in ports (other than terminals) and within the three nautical mile coastal
waters limit - the responsible State/NT authority through the National Plan
State Committee, with assistance from AMSA as required;

• beyond the three nautical mile coastal waters limit - the Commonwealth
through AMSA, except in incidents when oil is likely to come ashore. In such
circumstances, the State/NT, through the National Plan State Committee, will
be the combat authority for protecting the coastline, while AMSA assumes
responsibility for ship operational matters such as salvage; and

• in the Great Barrier Reef - the Queensland government through the National
Plan State Committee, with assistance from AMSA as required.

Inter-Governmental Agreement

Responsible Commonwealth and State Transport Ministers have signed Inter-

Governmental Agreement (IGA) on the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the
Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances.

The Inter-Governmental Agreement ensures that the national approach to

preparedness and response to oil and chemical spills in the marine environment
is continued and strengthened, provides a mechanism to ensure decision making
under the National Plan is co-operative and ensures that the obligations of all
parties are met.
AMSA/AIP Oil Spill Agreement

To complement the National Plan IGA, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

on Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response is also in place between AMSA and
the key representative body of Australia’s petroleum industry, the Australian
Institute of Petroleum (AIP).

The MOU formalises the intention of AMSA and AIP to co-operate to ensure that
the National Plan operates effectively and wherever possible is enhanced, and
reflects the industry’s commitment to maintain the Australian Marine Oil Spill
Centre (AMOSC) as the major National Plan equipment stockpile for Australian
waters. AMOSC is a subsidiary of the Australian Institute of Petroleum based in
Geelong, Victoria, and is an integral part of the National Plan. In an oil spill
response AMOSC has, in addition to its own staff, access to personnel from the
major oil companies. AMOSC also coordinates the industry's mutual aid
arrangements.

Funding

Funding of Commonwealth responsibilities under the National Plan is based on

the potential-polluter-pays principle. To achieve this, a levy is imposed on
commercial shipping using Australian ports. This levy provides funds for ongoing
development, maintenance and administration of the National Plan, including the
acquisition, storage and maintenance of the equipment and training programs.
The levy also provides contingency funds to cover costs incurred in responding
to incidents where the polluter cannot be identified and costs cannot be
recovered.

Management Structure

The National Plan Management Committee (NPMC) provides advice to Ministers

on the strategic, policymaking and funding direction for the National Plan. NPMC
is supported by the National Plan Operations Group (NPOG), which considers
the ongoing operational aspects of the Plan for both oil and chemicals. The
Group is chaired by AMSA, with membership incorporating the key operational
stakeholders. NPOG has established three Working Groups to assist in carrying
out these functions, dealing respectively with oil spill response, chemical spill
response and environmental issues.

It is important to note that States/NT, industry and ports also provide funding,
both direct and indirect, to carry out National Plan functions.
Equipment

The National Plan holds a wide range of response equipment at all major ports.
Equipment provided by AMSA is generally targeted at larger spills (Tier 2 and 3).
This is complemented by equipment held by port authorities for Tier 1 spills,
individual oil and chemical companies and by the Australian Marine Oil Spill
Centre stockpile in Geelong. Equipment can be rapidly deployed to the scene of
a spill.

Types of equipment include oil spill control booms of varying types and sizes,
self-propelled oil recovery vessels, static oil recovery devices and sorbents. A
range of storage devices including free standing tanks and towable storage
bladders and bags complement recovery devices.

Darwin

Townsville

Dampier

Brisbane

Fremantle
Pt Adelaide
Sydney
Melbourne

NATIONAL PLAN
Launceston
TIER 2/3 STOCKPILES

Equipment used for chemical spills depends on the type of chemical. Chemical
substances have properties that vary widely and can damage or cause failure to
some types of equipment. Appropriate chemical response and clean up
equipment is identified by the chemical industry and fire authorities. Suitable oil
response equipment may be used in a chemical spill.
Support systems

A computer-based Oil Spill Trajectory Model (OSTM) is used to simulate and

predict the movement of oil spills. The information provided assists those making
decisions on measures needed to counter the threat to the marine environment.

The National Plan Oil Spill Response Atlas (OSRA) is a computer-based digital
mapping system that allows operators to overlay various types of data to identify
biological, cultural, geomorphological and socio-economic resources and how a
marine pollution incident may impact these resources.

To assist in predicting, modelling and preventing chemical spills, the National

Plan also has access to a range of chemical spill and emergency decision
support tools. These tools provide information on bulk chemicals and packaged
goods transported by sea, chemical toxicity and properties, atmospheric plume
dispersion and safety emergency procedures.

Training

Regular training programs and exercise are conducted for personnel likely to be
involved in a spill response. Training courses are run by AMSA, the States/NT
and industry, and assistance with training is regularly provided in the region as
part of programmes undertaken by IMO and/or the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP). Overseas participants are also welcome to
attend courses run in Australia.

Oil spill training is conducted on three levels:

Senior Management – for senior government and industry management

personnel responsible for high level decision-making

Middle Management – for middle management personnel responsible for

managing operational responses, their deputies, and environment and scientific
coordinators.

Operator – for supervisors appointed as site managers and personnel

responsible for undertaking on-site clean up and support operations.

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

March 2004
CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE IN SPILL RESPONSE - KOREA

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

Uk Kim
Response Team Manager
Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation
 Oil Spill Response Scheme in Korea
Kim, Uk
Response Team Manager

Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation

KMPRC

1. Introduction
The oil tanker Sea Prince Incident which occurred in the South Coast of the Republic of
Korea in July 1995 was one of the biggest oil pollution incident that we have experienced, so far.
The vessel was carrying a cargo of 260,000tons of Saudi Arabian crude oil when it was grounded
in a small island near Yeo-su port during a typhoon. This incident resulted in an oil spill of
approximately 5,000 tons of cargo and fuel oil and spilt oil was spread fifteen miles away from
Sori Island to 127 miles along coasts of Geo-je, Pusan, Ulsan and Po-hang, and thin oil was even
discovered 20 miles away from the West Coast of Tsushima Island in Japan.
Due to the incident, the Government came to recognize the seriousness to oil pollution
impacted on marine environment. Thus, we started to develop our response system such as in the
improvement of national regimes, enhancement of national oil recovery capability, etc. in order
to prepare for similar mass oil pollution incidents. Being difficult for an individual State to
response effectively in an event of a mass oil pollution incident, we also came to recognize the
necessity of international cooperation establishment.

2. National Response Scheme after Sea Prince Incident

2.1 Planning and Response System

2.1.2 National Contingency Plan(NCP)

In accordance to the necessity of a synthetic plan establishment for preparedness and

response to disaster by mass oil pollution nation-wide since the Sea Prince Incident and
requirement of establishment of National Contingency Plan in ratifying the OPRC Convention,
the Republic of Korea began to establish the Plan in 1998 and which was deliberated and settled
at the Cabinet Meeting on 11 January 2000.
2.1.2 Regional Contingency Plan(RCP) fitted to Characters of each Sea Area
Regional Contingency Plan for counter-measuring in common per region covering 12 sea
areas segmented in accordance with the National Contingency Plan have been established the
period of 1999 to 2002 through a professionally specialized service engineering institution in
order to regionally prepare and respond to marine pollution, which defines organization and
procedures of response, works to be prepared, etc. including ESI map.

2.1.3 Unifying Response Command System

The Government unified the related works with response of oil spill into Korea National
Maritime Police Agency (KNMPA), which were divided into several authorities, and prepared
legal basis on establishment of the Response Countermeasure Head-Quarter (RCHQ) which the
Commissioner of KNMPA become Chairman of RCHQ, so that he can overall command the
mobilized personnel and equipment at response scene.
 Figure 1. Chart for counter-measuring System against Pollution Accidents

2.1.4 Support System by Response Experts

The Scientific Support Unit (SSU) for advice of response technique and research of
scientific response method in response actions was established in 1997 according to the revised
Marine Pollution Prevention Law. The members of SSU is nominated by the Commissioner of
KNMPA, and SSU is composed of twenty-eight experts from nine Research Institutes at present
and advise works are divided into six fields.
2.2 Reinforcement of National Response Capability

2.2.1 Response Equipment

Since the Sea Prince Incident, we have been reinforcing National Response
Capability(NRC) targeting 20,000 tons in oil recovery capability, allocating as Government
10,000tons(KNMPA), KMPRC 5,000tons and private companies 5,000 tons. KNMPA had
planned a Five Years Plan for reinforcement of response equipment and has been proceeding
with the Plan. Consequently, response power were remarkably reinforced than previous.
Table.1 Status of National Response Capability (Jan. 2004)
Oil Recovery Oil Skimmer Oil Boom Response
Vessel (set) (km) Capability(ton)
Total 117 262 250 14,600
KNMPA 19 93 23 5,800
KMPRC 62 127 47 6,200
Others 36 42 180 2,600

2.2.2 Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation (KMPRC)

In order to strengthen the capability of the private sector to respond to marine pollution, the
KMPRC was established in 1997 by the joint investment of Korean government and five major
oil refinery companies. According to the Marine Pollution Prevention Law, oil storage facilities
with a capacity of more than 10,000 tons, tanker shipping companies operating more than 500
tons gross tonnage, and cargo shipping companies operating more than 10,000 tons gross tonnage
may be members of the corporation and 100 members are entered now.
The KMPRC consists of a headquarter, 11 branches in major ports and 13 offices operating
port reception facilities and major functions of the KMPRC are as follows:

○ control of discharged wastes including oil.

○ arrangement of oil recovery boats or equipment

○ stockpile or lending of equipment and materials

○ management of oil deposits and disposal facilities

○ training and education of clean-up operations

 ○ activities entrusted by the government

2.3 Strengthening of Training and Exercise

According to NCP, KMPRC is providing response personnel with various training programs
such as operational level courses for first responders, administrative level courses for on-scene
commanders and managers, oversea training courses, etc.
Also, KMPRC has been raising adaptation capabilities to the NCP and the RCP through the
joint exercises by government, local authorities and industries, and has been continuously
improving problems generated through such exercises.

2.4 Promotion of Response Technology Development

Concerns to technology development in field of response has been magnified and it has been
actively proceeding many researches and developments such as the Response Supporting System
(RSS) of oil spill incident and the Oil Spill Prediction Model to oil spill incident in Research
Institutes, many kinds of absorbent and dispersant in private companies, etc.

2.5 International Response Cooperation System

2.5.1 Accession to OPRC Convention

The Republic of Korea, in order to accede to the OPRC Convention, improved response
regimes and established NCP with proceeding procedures required, and acceded to the
Convention on 9 November 1999. The Convention in Republic of Korea entered into force on 9
February 2000.

2.5.2. Active Participation in NOWPAP Projects

According to the recommendation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Northwest Pacific Action Plan(NOWPAP) for protection, management and development of the
marine and coastal environment of Northwest Pacific Region, which was agreed by five Member
States, was launched by holding the First Intergovernmental Meeting on September 1994, in
Seoul, Republic of Korea.
In order to effectively proceed with this Plan, the priority projects of six areas were
designated and inter-alia the NOWPAP/4 Project for development of effective measures for
regional cooperation in marine pollution preparedness and response is being most actively.
3. State of oil spill incidents
The number of oil spill incidents has been reduced continuously due to the combined efforts
of the shipping industry and government to improve safety and pollution prevention.

However, because oil spill incidents tend to be huge lately, early preparedness and upgrade
in response know-how is required.

Numbers of Incidents Q'ty of Oil Spilled(㎘)

500 1,600
483 Jeongyang 1,457.7
463 455 623㎘ 1,400
400
Spilt Oil 1,200
Incidents 385
297 1,000
300 D.Pioneer
Daerim501
P.Harmony 204㎘
165㎘
328㎘
800
668.1 Duckyang
200 583.0 600
360㎘

386.9 409.9
400
100
200

0 0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

< Table 1> Stats of Oil Spill Incidents in KOREA, 1999-2003

4. Recommendation

Presently, the Republic of Korea is in the midst of planning the development of oil
prevention policy through experience and lessons learned from oil pollution incidents, and
continuous feedback acquired from the results of oil pollution prevention exercises. On one hand,
the government together with industry and response organization collaborate with each other in
forming a cooperation in preparedness of oil pollution incidents and also plan to form an
international cooperation with neighboring countries.
Lastly, in preparedness of huge oil pollution incidents, we need to give more priority in
improving the following subjects.
 z Preparedness
- Update Contingency Plan
- Training and Education
- R&D for Response Scheme, technique, equipment, etc.
z Response
- Development of operational procedure
- Coordination & Communication between related parties
- Develop Global Co-operation System
-
***

Biography.

Kim, Uk is a manager of response team working in planning and development of response

system. He holds B.S from Korea Maritime University.
CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE IN SPILL RESPONSE -

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

Gedisa Kone
Environmental Officer
Department of Petroleum and Energy
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICES IN SPILL RESPONSE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Gedisa Kone Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea

ABSTRACT

Spill Contingency Planning and Response practices in Papua New Guinea is covered by
the National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan, established in 1981.The Plan operates
on a three tiered response concept which utilizes both national and international
response assistance, based on the level of response required. The plan also provides a
framework for cooperation between industries and government agencies in oil spill
combat and shares spill response resources located in all major ports of the country.
The PNG Maritime Transport Division is the leading agency delegated with the legal
responsibility of commanding all spill responses within the country. It has the backing of
other established national agencies and the oil industries in the country.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Papua New Guinea in recognition of the need for global and regional environmental
protection from increasing threat of marine pollution incident, established its first Oil
Pollution Plan in 1981.This was revised again in 1990, with the assistance from
International Maritime Organization’s Regional Spill Advisor. The Major Oil Industries
operating in the country have also established their Oil Spill Contingency Plan in 1997,
which collaborates with PNG’s National Plan.
Discussion on spill responses in Papua New Guinea will cover the practices outlined in
the National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan and the Marine Oil Spill Plan used by oil
industry in PNG.

2.0 THE NATIONAL SPILL RESPONSE PLAN

2.1 Legislative Framework For Spill Management In PNG

Papua New Guinea’s first Oil Pollution Plan was published in 1981. In 1990, the PNG
government in collaboration with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO)
Regional Oil Spill Advisor, had a revised plan known as the National Marine Oil Spill
Contingency Plan (NATPLAN) which was developed to meet PNG’s Obligation under
the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation
1990 (OPRC 90) and South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) Protocol1,
establish by its convention2
The revised plan allows for combined effort by relevant National Departments, the oil
industries and coastal ship owners to provide contingency plan to combat ship-sourced oil
spills in PNG marine environment.
PNG recently launched a national legislation on marine pollution prevention, specifically
to regulate shipping activities.

1
Protocol Concerning cooperation in combating pollution emergencies in South Pacific Region
2
South Pacific Regional Environmental Program Convention

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

2.2 The National Plan

Papua New Guinea’ National Oil Spill Contingency Plan covers all forms of spills in
marine environment including oil, chemicals and other hazardous substances. Its
geographical scope extends to all coastlines and marine waters within the 200 nautical
miles Exclusive Economic Zone of Papua New Guinea.

Various national agencies have been delegated legal responsibilities, to ensure response
is made to any oil incidents. These lead agencies take initial response to spillages
occurring in areas under their jurisdiction.

All spills within the harbour limits, fall under the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea
Harbours Board. Any spills from oil terminals within and outside harbour limits, will be
the responsibility of respective terminal operators, while those outside harbour limits fall
under the Maritime Transport Division of PNG’s jurisdiction.

The Maritime Transport Division through its Office of Transport is the responsible
authority for all marine oil spills within Papua New Guinea Waters. It has the operational
responsibility for commanding the response to marine spills through a designated
Incident Controller

PNG’s National Plan is based on three-tiered response concept. Tier one, covers small
ships spills normally, less than 10 tons that are within response capability and resources
of an individual port or oil terminal and are usually covered by Oil Industry or Port
Contingency Plans. Tier Two covers medium spills, between 10 to 1000 tons. The spills
that are within national capability and resources are covered by the National Plan.
Tier Three, covers major spills in access of 1000 tons that are of magnitude beyond the
response capability and resources of the country, including spills that impact or
threatened to impact within the jurisdiction of PNG and neighboring countries. Tier
Three spills are covered by the National Plan and also require activation of the Regional
Plan- the Australia National Plan and Pacific Island Plans.

2.3 Spill Response Structure

An organizational structure known as the Oil Spill Response Incident Control System
(OSRICS) has been set for response to any marine spills within Papua New Guinea
waters. During any spill incidents, the Lead Agency3 will organize a Spill Response
Team based on the structure.

The structure includes a National Marine Spill Committee, which develops and maintains
the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan through policy development, assessment of the
effectiveness of spill response exercises and provision of advice to the government on
marine pollution issues.

3
PNG Maritime Transport Division’s Office of Transport is the Lead Response Agency

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

An Incident Controller (IC) is established under the structure. It serves as the primary
decision-making authority in relation to spill response activities and its important roles
include directing and coordinating all response efforts at the scene.

Four specialized units were established under the structure to provide specialized
functions to spill response operations. These specialized units include the Planning
Section, the Operations Section, the Logistic Section and the Financial and
Administration Section

2.4 Response Actions and Operations

In commanding the response to spills, the Incident Controller delegates relevant tasks to
the marine response team using a Spill Response Action Checklist. These actions can be
summarized in the Five Phase Reponses Action given below.
1. Detection Of Spill, Notification and Alert of Authorities
2. Evaluation, Situation Analysis and Plan Activation
3. Response and Containment of Spill
4. Clean up and disposal of Oil/ Chemical Wastes
5. Site Rehabilitation, Cost Recovery and Long Term Monitoring

Among the series of response actions taken during a spill, the highest priority is given to
protecting public health and safety, which takes precedence over actions taken to
minimize environmental damage.

The second priority action is stabilizing spill source and intervention at sea. It involves
attempt to stop the flow of oil or other pollutant from the source so as to prevent the
extent and severity of spills. Further more with the accession to United Nations
Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), PNG can intervene on the high seas against
the wishes of ships and cargo interest operating within its Territorial Sea, to prevent any
danger from pollution threat.

Following the action to stop flow of spill, a Spill Assessment and Reporting is undertaken
using a Pollution Report Form (POLREP). This report will be transmitted to the National
Marine Pollution Committee and other interested parties including South Pacific
Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) and Australian Maritime Safety Organization
(AMSA).

Containment and Recovery at Sea is another important and challenging action because of
the diverse PNG marine environments and the limitations like nature of spills, the
physical conditions, the logistical conditions and availability of equipment. Because of
this, the NATPLAN also outlines the techniques to be deployed respectively in each
marine environments. This includes use of oil spill dispersants, mechanical equipment
and practices involving in-situ burining and bioremediation.

Spill Surveillance and Forecasting is undertaken through direct observation, manual

calculation using currents and winds and computer modeling. Computer modeling is
requested through AMSA and SPREP, as PNG does not have these systems available.

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

The Lead agency has set up a 24-hour hotline for spill detection and reporting from the
public. It immediately completes a POLREP report, following a spill and transmits it to
relevant national and regional agencies. This also includes a Situation Report and a Post-
Incident Report.

All post spill activities including response termination, equipment cleaning and
restoration and damage assessment and monitoring are done by the Lead Agency. The
PNG Department Of Environment and Conservation assist the Lead Agency in
environmental restoration and rehabilitation activities.

2.5 External Assistance

The Government of Papua New Guinea and Australia signed a Memorandum of
Understanding in 1997 to strengthen maritime relations through mutual cooperation. This
allows the two countries to consult together in matters pertinent to maritime issues.
In addition the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and PNG Department of
Transport signed an MoU4, in accordance with IMO Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness and Response Cooperation 1990, providing for close cooperation between
the two organisations in combating oil pollution.
PNG being a member of the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP)
can requests assistance for major spillages under the Pacific Islands Regional Spill
Contingency Plan (PACPLAN). The SPREP Protocol5 established in 1996, allows Pacific
Islands countries to cooperate in marine pollution emergencies.

2.6 Equipment
The national inventory is a joint government / industry arrangement with both parties
contributing to and having access to equipment. In general, the oil industry provides
equipment necessary to respond to tier one spills, while the government provides the
balance of the stockpile. The government stockpile is located all over the country in
major ports.

2.7 Spill Training Exercises

The national spill training and drills are conducted annually by the Department of
Transport with participants from relevant government agencies. The Oil Spill Response
Team also undertakes its training in all aspects of marine oil spill response required in the
National Plan.
The Incident Controller and other senior personel receive training on the Incident Control
System, which includes classroom and table-top drills and exercises. Such training
focuses on major spill incidents requiring, external assistance.

2.8 Existing Plans To Upgrade Response Capability

There is plan to continuously revise the PNG National Oil Spill Contingency Plan to
reflect changes and current practices. This includes the need for a detail plan on response

4
Memorandum of Understanding
5
SPREP Pollution Protocol concerning cooperation in combating marine pollution emergencies in South
Pacific Region

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

to chemical spills because the current national plan is more focused on oil spills. The
Department of Transport is also working on finalizing a detailed plan for oiled wildlife,
to be included in that National Plan. This aims to provide response practices for
rehabilitation of wildlife affected in spills
Oil Spill Exercise and training is another area, which, PNG is looking at. Particularly
regular training and upgrading of skills in oil spill response and management.
The PNG Government has recently launched a legislation on marine pollution as
anticipated, which aims to provide a regulatory mechanism for prevention of marine
pollution in PNG waters.
There is need to continuously update the national stockpiles of response equipment
located around the country. The PNG government is looking at options to replace old
equipment when it makes funds available.

3.0 OIL INDUSTRY SPILL RESPONSE PLAN

Three major oil companies operate in Papua New Guinea involving mainly in import and
distribution of petroleum products totaling to more than 750 megalitres per annum. These
products are transported in variety of vessels around the coastline of PNG, in vessels
ranging in size from 600-50000 tonne cargo capacity. There are also local and overseas
vessels using both major and minor port facilities in the country.

In recognition of the need for environmental protection from potential oil spill pollution,
the oil industry has a Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan in place. This plan was prepared
in 1997, as a supporting document to the National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan of
PNG.
The Plan provides a Marine Oil Spill Action Plan (MOSAP) for oil companies. Its spill
response equipment are located all over the country in major ports and operates under
tiered response principle, similar to that of the national plan. The industry has reliable
contacts and arrangements for deployment of overseas resources from recognized
organizations like, the Australian Maritime Spill Center (AMOSC), East Asia Response
Limited (EARL) in Singapore and Oil Spill Service Center (OSSC) in UK, particularly
for large spill responses.

Other Oil Companies involving in petroleum exploration and refining in the country have
their Oil Spill Contingency Plans. These plans are also submitted as regulatory
requirements to relevant government agencies like the PNG Department of Environment
and Conservation and the Department Petroleum & Energy.

4.0 CONCLUSION
PNG has a lot of sensitive marine environment, which lies in pathways of major shipping
routes presenting great risk from oil pollution. To provide contingency for effective
response to this increasing threat and as part of the commitment to global and regional
need for cooperation in spill response and planning, PNG has put in place its National
Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan.
This plan provides a framework for cooperation between the government and oil industry
in oil spill response within PNG and the Pacific Region.

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
 APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response & Planning- March 25, 2004-Singapore

5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Despite the current efforts by PNG in oil spill response contingency, the following
recommendations can be said;
¾ Continuous updating of the National Plan
¾ There is need for enhancement in the lead agencies functions through skills
upgrading, response training and funding.
¾ Replacement and boosting of the country’s national stockpile
¾ Public awareness

REFERENCES

Hides Gas Field – Oil Spill Contingency Plan (1994). BP Exploration Operating
Company Limited
National Marine Spill Contingency Plan (2001) Department of Transport and Works
Papua New Guinea Kutubu Petroleum Development Project- Oil Spill Contingency
Plan (1991)- Chevron Niugini
Papua New Guinea Onshore Drilling Operations Management System- Spill
Contingency Plan (1998). Santos Niugini Exploration Limited.
Vagi.GO, (1993) Papua New Guinea Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan- Shell PNG
Pty. Ltd

Prepared by Gedisa Kone- Department of Petroleum & Energy, Papua New Guinea
OFFSHORE DISPERSANT OPERATIONS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

Scott Hartley
Commander, National Strike Force
United States Coast Guard
 Offshore Dispersant Operations
In the United States of America

by CDR James Hanzalik and CAPT Scott Hartley

Historically, dispersants have been considered by responders in the U.S. as a secondary response
tool and have been given only minimal consideration during oil spills and contingency planning
efforts. Dispersants were first used during the Torrey Canyon spill in 1967 and have been
applied numerous times worldwide since that incident. The original chemical compositions of
dispersants included industrial emulsifying agents, which has reasonable dispersing properties
but were also highly toxic to the marine environment because of their aromatic content.
Following the Torrey Canyon spill, improvement in both product development and application
tactics have resulted in low toxicity dispersant formulations that can be effectively applied
(Calhoun, et. al., 1997).

Since the mid-1990s, dispersant operations have become a more accepted alternative response
technology to mitigate the effects of oil spills in the United States. This is especially true in the
Gulf of Mexico, where all dispersant application operations have been conducted since 1989.
The main reason for this regional difference is that approximately 90% of U.S. oil supplies are
transported through the Gulf, which creates more “opportunities” for spills to occur that are
likely to be dispersible. This being the case, the Gulf Region has dispersant response resources
readily available to carryout these operations. As a model for dispersant operations in the U.S.,
this will be the exception rather than the rule for the purposes of illustrating this alternative
response technology in the U.S. This paper discusses present dispersant operations in the U.S.;
specifically, the decision-making processes that are required before an operation is conducted,
the resources required to conduct such an operation and monitoring of the operation.

Before a dispersant operation is undertaken, there are many deliberate decisions that are made
and required before the dispersant operation is approved. Because of the tradeoffs involved (i.e.,
relative benefits and potential negative effects), the U.S. National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) restricts dispersant use. Dispersants must be on a national list
maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal and state agency
agreements through Regional Response Teams (RRTs) establish areas where rapid decisions on
dispersants may be made by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC). Use outside these areas
requires the approval of additional agencies identified in the NCP. As of December 1998, seven
of nine coastal regions have authorized pre-approval for dispersant use in specified areas. This
decision making process varies by region which may, in some instances, delay the operation until
it is no longer a viable option.

For the purposes of this paper, we will be using Region VI (Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast
and offshore areas.) In this area there is a pre-approval plan for dispersant operations, RRT-6
Federal on Scene Coordinator (FOSC) Preapproved Dispersant Use Plan, which the FOSC uses
to determine if the use of dispersants is a viable option to mitigate a spill. This plan has been in
effect for approximately seven years and has been used with outstanding results. This plan is
concise and easy to use. The simple decision–making checklist consists of a yes or no flow chart
(Figure 1) often referred to as an expert system. The pre-approval is written for major offshore
oil spills, with a six-hour window of opportunity, stating only aerial dispersant resources are
authorized. It also limits dispersant operations to offshore waters of Louisiana and Texas that are
no less than ten meters in depth and three nautical miles from shore. The plan also authorizes
any dispersant listed on the NCP Product Schedule and requires the maximum spray coverage to
1:10, about twice the recommended ratio of 1:20. The plan outlines specific requirements for
notifications, briefing and seeking advice from the RRT throughout the decision-making process.
The process, both detailed and comprehensive, ensures that all regulatory agencies both Federal
and State are included in the review and approval of pre-authorization plans. The plan as
written, overcomes several regulatory requirements including the Endangered Species Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act and of course the NCP, making it a rapid decision making tool.
In addition, it allows the FOSC to make the decision to use dispersants. Once the FOSC makes
the decision, the FOSC or the Unified Command (which consists of the FOSC, representatives of
State government, the responsible party, and personnel in charge of the spill response) staffs
make logistical arrangements for the actual dispersant operation.

Once the approval for dispersant operations is given, a second hurdle, the logistics,
coordination and execution of the dispersant operation has to take place for the mission to be
successful. Due to varying weathering properties of oil, the logistical requirements for a
dispersant operation need to be met within the first 24-36 hours after notification. Typically, in
the Gulf of Mexico, dispersant operations are conducted during daylight hours using aircraft with
spraying apparatus as the delivery system. In most instances the aircraft, dispersant and delivery
equipment is privately owned and contracted by the Responsible Party (RP) or the “spiller.” In
addition, a readily available dispersant asset needs to be in place to conduct the operation. This
too varies by region where in some areas the logistics of getting the response resources in place
could be a “show stopper.” In the Gulf, Airborne Support, Inc. (ASI) is currently the only viable
contractor able to carry out this operation within the window of opportunity. ASI was developed
and supported by a majority of the bulk oil tanker trade [Marine Industry Response Group
(MIRG), Clean Gulf membership, and the Louisiana Oil Offshore Platform (LOOP)] to carry out
dispersant operations in the LOOP area and the Galveston, Texas lightering zone (Calhoun, et.
al., 1997).

The operation is usually managed using the Incident Command System (ICS) which provides
great flexibility in size of the operation and unity of command. Operations under ICS, usually
consists of a leader, Dispersant Operations Group Supervisor, spotter aircraft or spotter, sprayer
aircraft and monitoring aircraft or monitor. These positions are filled by various RP, contractor
and government personnel.

The Dispersant Operations Group Supervisor is in charge of a functional group under the
operations section of the ICS organization. In the absence of an operations section, which is
typical early in an oil spill response, the Dispersant Operations Group Supervisor would report to
the Incident Commander (IC) who is the FOSC for oil spill incidents. This position manages the
planning and execution (mostly operations, but some planning) for the dispersant operation.
His/her responsibilities include, overall safety of the operation, requests restricted airspace,
requests resources, arranges logistical support (dispersant, aircraft, fuel, airport arrangements,
aircrews), and coordinates the disposal of unused dispersant.

The spotter position, or spotter, is physically located in an aircraft, which spots or guides
sprayer aircraft over the spill target. The spotter remains in tactical control of the sprayer aircraft
and is in charge of the dispersant operation on scene. This duty includes supervising on-scene
airborne activities, coordinates effectiveness monitoring including monitoring aircraft or vessels,
coordinates the use of restricted airspace, and sets communication protocols and limits traffic
into the operations area.

The spray aircraft is the delivery system of the dispersants to the oil spill. The sprayer reports
to and receives tasking for the spotter aircraft. Because dispersant operations can be executed in
multiple geographic areas due to the spreading and breakup of the slick, multiple sprayer aircraft
or vessels may be used.

In addition to getting dispersant resources on scene, it is equally important to get monitoring

resources on scene within the narrow window of opportunity. The monitor aircraft or vessel is
primarily responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the dispersant operation. Government
personnel may serve onboard this platform to carry out Tier I and/or Tier II responsibilities under
Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART), which will be discussed later
in this paper.

The observer or observation aircraft or vessels are platforms and persons specifically assigned
to observe the dispersant application.

Their observer status should be authorized by the IC/UC on the basis of their position as a
stakeholder in the outcome of the operation. Observers may include cooperate officials,
government agency representatives, political officials, scientists, trustees and others. In addition,
scientific personnel may be on board to observe as a Tier I, SMART observer. An organizational
chart, Figure 2, is provided below to illustrate a dispersant operation.

This dispersant model is an accepted industry practice in the Gulf region and has been used a
number of times since 1997. Other coastal regions to conduct dispersant operations have since
adopted it. It is imperative that monitoring teams and technical advisors are notified of possible
dispersant operations as soon as they are considered. In the United States, SMART protocol is a

FOSC

OPERATIONS SECTION

DISPERSANT GROUP

SPOTTER

SPRAYER

MONITOR

OBSERVER
cooperatively designed monitoring program for in-situ burning and dispersants for Regions I, II,
IV and VI. SMART relies on small, highly mobile teams, U.S. Coast Guard Strike Teams, which
collect real-time data using portable, rugged, and easy-to-use instruments, flourometers, during
dispersant operations. Data collected by these instruments is channeled to the FOSC or Unified
Command to address critical questions such as: Is the dispersant effective? Are additional
applications necessary? Do mechanical resources need to be mobilized? To monitor the efficacy
of dispersant application, the SMART protocol recommends three options, or tiers.

Tier I is a trained observer, flying over the oil slick and using photographic job aids or
advanced remote sensing instruments, assesses dispersant efficacy and reports back to the
Federal On-Scene Coordinator. The goal of Tier I Monitoring is to identify oil, visually assess
efficacy of dispersants applied to oil, and report the observations to the FOSC with
recommendations. The recommendations may be to continue, to modify, or to evaluate further
monitoring or use because dispersants were not observed to be effective. Personnel can be
deployed on a spotter, observer or monitor aircraft.

Tier II is used when dispersant operations effectiveness is difficult to determine by

observation alone, Tier II provides real-time data from the treated slick. A sampling team on a
boat uses a fluorometer to continuously monitor for dispersed oil one meter under the dispersant-
treated slick. The team records and conveys fluorometer data to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Scientific Support Coordinator and others, which then
forwards it with recommendations to the Unified Command or FOSC. Water samples are also
taken for later analysis at a laboratory. The monitoring goal for Tier II is the same for Tier II, to
continue, to modify, or to evaluate further monitoring or use because dispersants were not
observed to be effective.

Tier III is used when the FOSC or Unified Command desires additional information on the
movement of the dispersed oil plume, monitoring efforts are expanded in several ways. Tier III
provides information on where the dispersed oil goes and what happens to it. Two fluorometers
are used on the same vessel to monitor at two water depths. Monitoring is conducted in the
center of the treated slick at several water depths, from one to ten meters. A portable water
laboratory provides data on water temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
turbidity. The main goal of Tier III is to track the submerged dispersant plume. Tier II and III
personnel are normally deployed on the monitor vessel.

In all instances, the monitoring of the dispersant operation is very important, but a dispersant
operation is not normally delayed for Tier II and III monitoring. It should be noted that SMART
does not monitor the fate, effects or impacts of dispersed oil. At this time, there are no
requirements in the U.S. for such monitoring activities.

In summary, after years of research, dispersants use since the mid 1990s has become a viable
first response tool for mitigating the effects of oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. With
the development of government sanctioned pre-approval of dispersants, standard dispersant
operation protocols and SMART to monitor its effects, Regions along the coastal areas of the
U.S. have embraced dispersant use. In addition, through the formation of a partnership between
Industry and Government, dispersants have low toxicity with high dispersing qualities.
Dispersant delivery systems are available and deployable to ensure dispersant operations can be
successfully executed within the required timeframes to be effective. As a result, dispersant use
is an acceptable means to mitigate the effects of major oil spills in the United States.
 Figure 1. RRT VI FOSC Dispersant Use Flowchart

Oil Spilled

[1]

Deploy [2]
Deploy Mechanical &
SMART Dispersant OPS go ISB-WX Permitting
to standby alert

11
NO

1 Dispersant OPS on
Dispersants Use will have weather standby Rely on Mechanical/
environmental Benefit (Notify RRT) In-Situ Burn Techniques only

YES
NO
2 5 5[A]
Spilled oil ≥ 3 NM NO
NO Aerial Winds ≤ 25 knots YES
offshore or with water Visibility ≥ 3 NM
depth ≥ 10 meters Application
Ceiling ≤ 1,000 feet 8 10
NO YES
Dispersant on Oil
YES 6[A] Dispersable
NCP Product
3 6 Seastate suitable
NO YES 12 YES
Contractual Boat for boat spray
Relationship Exits Application operation
Dispersant Application.
Monitor with SMART
YES 7
4 13/14
Develop Plan NO
for Alternate Inform RRT
Select 1 or more 9
Dispersant Platforms Platform
Pre-approval does not
apply. Refer to NCP
subpart H
Offshore Dispersant Operations in
the United States of America

Captain Scott Hartley

Commander, Coast Guard
National Strike Force
 Historical Dispersant Use

‹ Torrey Canyon Spill

1967

‹ Many of the
chemicals used
were degreasing
solvents & actually
more toxic than the
oil itself
 U.S. Dispersant Use Today
‹ Since mid-1990s
dispersants are
more accepted
alternative
‹ Gulf of Mexico Region
of the U.S. has lead
U.S in dispersant use
& expertise
‹ Primarily due volume
of oil that moves
through the region
 Regulatory Considerations

‹ U.S. National Contingency Plan (NCP)

restricts dispersant use
‹ Dispersants must be identified on
national list maintained by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
‹ Regional Response Teams (RRT) may
further restrict dispersant use for certain
environmentally sensitive areas
Regulatory Considerations
 Regional Response Team VI
Pre-Approval Plan

‹ Pre-Approval Plan for dispersant

use for major spills in Western Gulf
‹ Expert System – flow chart &
checklists
‹ FOSC makes the decision with
notification to RRT members
‹ 10-meter depth restriction
 Regional Response Team VI
Pre-Approval Plan (cont)

‹ Geographic restriction of three

miles from shore
‹ Aerial dispersant delivery
‹ Allows spray coverage to 1:10
 Regional Response Team VI
Pre-Approval Plan (cont)

‹ Approved for daylight operations

‹ Overcomes several regulatory
requirements
– Endangered Species
– Coastal Zone Management
– NCP
 Operational Considerations

‹ FOSC approval has to be given before

the operation can begin
‹ Dispersant effectiveness decreases
after 24-36 hours
‹ Requires Responsible Party (RP) to
conduct pre-planning
 Operational Considerations

‹ RP coordinates all logistical needs

including:
– Spray Aircraft
– Dispersant
– Monitoring Vessels
– Observation aircraft
‹ In areas of U.S., logistics of
operation are a “show stopper”
Industry Group Contractor Support
‹Industry groups fund
“fire house”
dispersant capability

‹ Contractor
– Airborne Support, Inc.
– Provides readily
available aircraft &
dispersants in Gulf
Region
 Dispersant Operations

IC/ FOSC

Operations Planning Logistics

Dispersant Group

Spotter

Sprayer

Observer

Monitor
 Dispersant Operations

IC/ FOSC

Operations Planning Logistics

Dispersant Group

Spotter

Sprayer

Observer

Monitor
 Dispersant Operations

IC/ FOSC

Operations Planning Logistics

Dispersant Group

Spotter

Sprayer

Observer

Monitor
 Dispersant Operations

IC/ FOSC

Operations Planning Logistics

Dispersant Group

Spotter

Sprayer

Observer

Monitor
 Special Monitoring for Alternative
Response Technologies (SMART)

‹ Relies on small
highly mobile
teams (NSF Strike
Teams)
‹ Three Tiers
– Tier 1 -Visually
observe
– Tiers 2 & 3 Collect
data
 Monitoring Operations (SMART)
Tier I

IC/ FOSC

Operations Planning Logistics

Dispersant Group

Spotter

Sprayer

Observer

Monitor
 Monitoring Operations (SMART)
Tier II
‹ Provides real-
time data from
treated slick
‹ Data is recorded
and evaluated by
NOAA personnel
& other scientists
‹ Water samples
are analyzed
Monitoring Operations (SMART)
Tier III
‹ Goal is to track
submerged plume
‹ Tells where
dispersed oil
went & what
happened to it
‹ Monitoring is
conducted at
several depths
 Summary

Dispersants are more accepted alternative

to mechanical cleanup in the U.S. because:

– Government and industry cooperation to

develop pre-approval plans
– Industry has maintained capable dispersant
resource
– Government has maintained dispersant
monitoring capability
Questions?
MARITIME CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN

MALAYSIA

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

Kalsom Abdul Ghani

Director, Department of Environment Selangor
MARITIME CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
IN MALAYSIA

Department of Environment Malaysia

Level 3-7, Block C4, Parcel C
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62662 PUTRAJAYA
 MARITIME CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
IN MALAYSIA

LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

The Director General of Environmental Quality is charged with managing all forms of
pollution at sea. In terms of controlling oil spills, from ships or any other sources. The
Director General of Environmental Quality will enforce the Environmental Quality Act
1974. The sections involved are section 27, 29, 46, 47 and 48.

The Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1984) – Section 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 40 will be
used by the Director General of Environmental Quality to protect and preserve the
environment within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Other legislation regarding marine pollution includes the following:

i. Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952, Chapter VA.

ii. Fisheries Act 1958, Section 26.
iii. Continental Shelf Act, 1966.
iv. Petroleum Mining Act, 1966.

International Conventions

Malaysia has implemented four international conventions regarding marine pollution.

i. International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as

modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78)

Annexes I, II and V of the Convention were ratified by Malaysia on May 1, 1997. The
Marine Department is the main implementing agency for this Convention.

Annex I of the Convention provides guidelines for managing oil pollution by ships re-
garding the following:

- The assembly, certification and inspection of merchant ship.

- Procedures for and control of oil disposal at sea.
- Providing oil disposal reception facilities.
- Establishing oil spill management capabilities among merchant ships.
- Coastal structure including providing for contingency and equipment.
- The obligation of all relevant parties with regard to monitoring marine pollution.
ii. International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation, 1990 (OPRC)

This Convention established preparatory methods for contingency plan, reporting

procedures for oil spill, technical cooperation within the region or internationally, and
the promotion of research and development in the area of oil spill management
among the state parties. Malaysia ratified this Convention on October 30, 1997, with
the Department of Environment as the lead agency, and further supported by the
Marine Department.

iii. Civil Liability Convention 1969 and International Oil Pollution Compensa-
tion Fund 1971.

The claim for clean-up cost and damages is provided for under Section 47, Environ-
mental Quality Act 1974. In the International regime, the Civil Liability Convention
1969 and International Oil Pollution Compensations Fund 1971 which was ratified by
the Malaysian Government on 6 April 195 also incorporate provision for claims.
Claims made to the international regimes of Civil Liability Convention 1969 and Inter-
national Oil Pollution Compensations Fund 1971 must be channeled through the Ma-
rine Department of Peninsular Malaysia, who act as coordinating agency.

iv. Basel Convention.

Malaysia ratified the Basel Convention since 8 October 1993. The purpose of this
Convention is to control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal.

OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the early seventies, when the threats of oil spills from thousand of oil tankers
plying the Straits of Malacca became real, the Department of Environment (DOE)
formulated its first oil spill response plan in 1975, then known as The National Oil
Spill Contingency Plan for the Straits of Malacca (SOMCP). In response to the
changing circumstances, DOE has revised and updated and improved the Plan in-
corporating amongst others the search and rescue elements and information on en-
vironmentally sensitive areas. In the intensified activities in the development of Ma-
laysia's offshore petroleum resources and the increasing of tanker traffic in the South
China Seas, the Government formulated another Oil Spill Contingency Plan for
South China Seas (SCSCP) in 1989. The SOMCP and the SCSCP were integrated
and together they constitute a National Oil Spill Contingency Plan (NOSCP). On
year 1994 NOSCP was reviewed and once again on year 2000 to strengthened the
plan.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The NOSCP was formulated to cater for oil spill in Malaysian waters including the
200 nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to meet the following objectives:

i. To provide a mechanism for coordinating response systems for effective

containment and recovery of oil;
ii. To enhance capability with the existing resources with respect to equipment
and manpower as well as training in combating oil spill; and
iii. To alleviate or minimise potential adverse impacts to the environment arising
from the spill.

RESPONSE ARRANGEMENT

The NOSCP is activated on a three tiered response concept, based on the location
of spill, quantity of spill and the response capability. The First Tier Response is
coordinated by local authorities or local oil industry on operational spill either within
port limits, oil terminal and depots or oil exploration and production platforms.
Usually, the magnitude of the spill is small and a local oil spill contingency plan is
activated, utilising the existing manpower and equipment.

As the spilled oil spread beyond the local area response capability, both in terms of
resources and mobilization time, the second tiered response is coordinated,
activating State Operation Committees, depending on the state of the incident.
The third Tiered Response is coordinated to deal with major oil spills, where all the
available government and industry resources are exhausted and where neighboring
countries' assistance is needed. This tiered response is also activated when the
spilled oil spreads out to the neighbouring countries. A number of regional con-
tingency plans and marine response procedures will be activated depending on the
geographical location and magnitude of the spills.

Each of the response level is inter-related to one another, and can be activated
simultaneously depending on the resources capability, mobilisation time, quantity
and location of spills as mentioned above.

PLAN ORGANISATION

The NOSCP is coordinated by the National Oil Spill Control Committee. The
Committee, chaired by the Director-General of Department of Environment,
comprises related government agencies and oil industry namely : Department of
Environment, Marine Department, Fisheries Department, Meteorological Services
Department, Custom and Excise Department, Immigration Department, Royal
Malaysian Navy, Royal Malaysian Air Force, Marine and Air Wing Police, Foreign
Affairs Ministry, National Security Council, Maritime Enforcement and Coordination
Centre, PETRONAS and the Petroleum Industry of Malaysia Mutual Aid Group
(PIMMAG).

The Committee has been given a mandate to advise the Area Coordinator and to
coordinate the various agencies involved in clean-up operation, air surveillance,
procurement and deployment of equipment, movement of personnel and
communication. The Committee, through the Foreign Affairs Ministry, also
coordinates with other neighbouring countries for assistance to expedite action with
minimum red tape.

OTHER OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE NOSCP

The NOSCP also detailed various important operational procedures, amongst

others includes: the notification and reporting, spill investigation, security against
liability, communication, sample collection, safety, public relations, claim,
environmental and property damages, use of dispersants, salvage and transfer of
cargo, temporary disposal of oily waste, training and review of contingency plan.

Recognising the need to make available financial support in an oil spill emergency,
the Government established a National Trust Fund for Preservation and Prevention
on the Environment. An allocation approximately 1 million Ringgit Malaysia has
been put aside for making available emergency clean-up fund against spill of
identified or unidentified source.

THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY OF MALAYSIA MUTUAL AID GROUP (PIMMAG)

Sope

The oil companies, led by PETRONAS in their effort to strengthen the national
response capability established a joint service company called the Petroleum
Industry of Malaysia Mutual Aid Group (PIMMAG). PIMMAG was incorporated as a
non-profit service company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1965.
The main purpose of PIMMAG is to establish an adequate, coordinated and cost
effective joint petroleum industry Tier 2 response capability for potential oil spill
emergencies arising from members' activities in Malaysian waters including the EEZ.

Structure and Organisation

PIMMAG is governed by a Board of Directors comprising ordinary members with the

overall responsibility for ensuring the objectives of PIMMAG are achieved in an
effective and efficient manner. The day to day management of PIMMAG is under-
taken by a small group of employees headed by a manager.

The Board of Directors appoints one or more service contractor(s) who act in a
service capacity only. The service contractor(s) provides maintenance and a small
core of trained manpower as well as specified logistical support to ensure ready
deploy ability of PIMMAG equipment where and when required. The service
contractor(s) also provides training of PIMMAG members.
Each member of PIMMAG has equal access to PIMMAG equipment in the event of
an oil spill and for training. In the event of an oil spill, the spiller shall request
PIMMAG OSR assistance directly from the contractor, under the call out procedures.
PIMMAG equipment stockpiles will be located and managed at three areas, two in
Peninsular Malaysia and one in Sabah and Sarawak.

Liability and indemnity

A spiller is responsible for the management and control of the oil spill response
required to combat such a spill. All costs incurred by PIMMAG for such activities
over and above the cost necessary to ensure availability of the resources shall be
borne by the spiller inclusive of all costs incurred through other parties which
provided assistance for the spill response when such assistance is given at the
spiller's request. PIMMAG rules include comprehensive liability and indemnity
clauses protecting PIMMAG and its members against any and all liabilities that may
arise from the actual provision of OSR services.

Planned OSR Capability

In order to effectively respond to a Tier 2 oil spill at any location throughout

Malaysia, PIMMAG will have a total OSR Capability of about 150,000 bbls. The
planned OSR capability is acquired through pooling of existing OSR resources of
members as well as procuring additional resources where necessary. These OSR
resources will be mobilised at three stockpile areas as mentioned above. Each
stockpile area will enable PIMMAG to mobilise the area resources within 12 to 24
hours. For larger spills which are beyond the designated geographical area's
capability, mobilisation of OSR resources of up to 50% from each of the other two
locations will be made possible within 24 to 48 hours. PIMMAG will also liaise with
other oil spill response organisations.

Integration With NOSCP

PIMMAG augments the national oil spill response capability and represent its
members in the National Oil Spill Control Committee (NOSCC). PIMMAG, without
liability to its members, give assistance to the NOSCC by providing necessary OSR
resources in NOSCC's effort to combat any oil spill.

REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN OIL SPILL RESPONSE

As environmental problems arising from oil spill rarely affect one nation alone,
particularly in coastal areas and the marine environment. In this respect, the needs
for regional cooperation to hold down hazards to the marine environment have been
recognized by the Government since the early seventies. Amongst the important
arrangements are;

i) The Traffic Separation Scheme for the Straits of Malacca;

ii) The Straits of Malacca and Singapore Revolving Fund; and
iii) Regional Oil Spill Contingency Plans.

TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME FOR THE STRAITS OF MALACCA

The Scheme, endorsed by the International Maritime Organization in 1977 adopted

by three littoral states namely Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore is geared for the
orderly flow of vessels with an under keel clearance of at least 3.5 meters at all time
during the passage through the Straits of Malacca to reduce the risk of collision in
congested and converging areas (Tan, 1987). The Scheme which came into force in
1987 also provides for one-way routes for opposing east-bound and west-bound
traffic, at a constant speed of twelve knots to prevent in-line collision.

THE STRAITS OF MALACCA AND SINGAPORE OIL SPILL REVOLVING FUND

The Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1981 between the Governments

of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore on the one part and the Malacca Straits
Council for the Japanese Non-Governmental Associations on the other part to
established a revolving fund of four hundred million yen. The Fund enables the three
littoral coastal states to take immediate action either independently or jointly against
any spill caused by ships whether accidental or intentional.
REGIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS

In 1981, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore formulated the Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) for Combating Oil Spill in the Straits of Malacca and Straits of
Singapore. This SOP was formulated after the establishment of Revolving Fund for
the Straits of Malacca and Straits of Singapore. In mid eighties, Indonesia, Malaysia
and Philippines formulated the Lombok Macassar Oil Spill plan to mitigate and
combat oil spill arising from vessel plying the straits. In early 1994, Malaysia and
Brunei Darulsallam also formulated the SOP for the Bay of Brunei. The Plan
complements the NOSCP and caters for oil spill in both the Malaysian and Brunei
waters.

In our continuing efforts to strengthened the regional capability in mitigating and

combating oil spill, in 1993, the six ASEAN countries including Malaysia established
the ASEAN Oil Spill Response Action Plan or in short ASEAN-OSRAP. The objective
of the Plan is to provide a mutual assistance from Member states in the event of a
major spill incident which exceeds the national response capability. Figure. 1 shows
the linkages of Malaysia's National Oil Spill Contingency Plan with other regional
plans.
 Figure 1. LINGKAGES OF MALAYSIA’S NATIONAL OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PELAN
WITH OTHER REGIONAL PLANS

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OIL POLLUTION

INTERNATIONAL IMO PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND CO-OPERATION (OPRC), 1990

ASEAN
ASEAN - OSRAP
VESSELS ON-SHORE
INSTALLATION
REGIONAL LOMBOK
MACASSAR OIL & GAS
OIL SPILL EXPLORATION
CONTINGENCY AND
SUB - REGIONAL
REVOLVING FUND PLAN PRODUCTION
COMMITTEE (RFC)
(SOP FOR THE BAY OF BRUNEI
STRAITS OF ASCOPE
OIL SPILL PLAN
MALACCA & CONTINGENCY
SIINGAPORE PLAN

EAST ASIA PIMMAG

NATIONAL RESPONSE
NATIONAL
LEVEL CONTINGENCY PLAN LIMITED
(MALAYSIA) (ESTABLISHED IN 1976) (EARL) OF
SINGAPORE
 CLOSING REMARKS

APEC Workshop on Oil Spill Response

Singapore
25 March 2004

Chua Lian Ho

Director, Training Division

Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

(PAPER NOT AVAILABLE)

 APEC WORKSHOP ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND PLANNING

Closing Statement
Ralph Ainger
Chief, Office of External Affairs
Office of Offshore Minerals Management
Minerals Management Service
United States of America

On behalf of the Minerals Management Service, a regulatory

agency of the United States Federal Government, I would like to say

that this APEC workshop on oil spill response and planning has been

an unqualified success. This topic is extremely important to APEC

members as they seek ways to improve their ability to protect the

marine environment while developing the offshore oil and gas

resources that are critical to the commercial well being of their

economies.

The Action Plan on Sustainability of the Marine Environment,

drawn up by APEC economy members, calls for developing

integrated approaches to coastal management; prevention, reduction

and control of marine pollution; and sustainable management of

marine resources. We believe these objectives were met here by the

APEC members who came together to exchange information and

discuss ways to improve their current practices. Participants

identified state-of-art technologies and methodologies available

worldwide for improving response to oil spills. They discussed

upgrading standards for response planning, equipment, methods and

operations as well as possibilities for training in the region. Most

importantly, we believe the workshop provided an opportunity to

strengthen regional cooperation among th e members of the APEC

economies.

It was a pleasure to work with the Singapore Maritime and Port

Authority, and we want to thank Mr. Shahul Hameed, Mr. Edwin M. K.

Leong and others for helping to make this workshop a success. We

also want to thank Mr. Ho Yu Weng of the East Asia Response

Limited and officials of the Integrated Simulator Centre for arranging

a site visit to their facilities.

We thank our panel members for the open and stimulating

discussion regarding the current state of practice in their respective

countries and for their recommendations on ways to improve oil spill

response throughout the APEC region.

 We thank RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew and Capt Khong Shen

Ping of the Maritime and Port Authority for co-hosting this Workshop.

The MPA is recognized worldwide as a leading authority in oil spill

response. Many of the participants in this workshop had the

opportunity to attend the very successful International Chemical and

Oil Pollution Conference and Exhibition which was sponsored by the

MPA. The combination of the ICOPCE conference and the APEC

workshop provided participants an opportunity to hear expert

discussions of many of the issues that face regulators and operators

today.

Finally, we thank all of you for coming and for contributing to

this success.
 APEC Oil Spill Response and Planning Workshop

Closing Remarks of Ms. Kathy Bentley

Office of Ocean Affairs, U.S. Department of State

March 25, 2004

First of all, I would like to thank the government of Singapore, East Asia
Response Limited, the Integrated Simulator Center, and the Singapore Maritime and Port
Authority for helping make this workshop a success. The goal of this APEC Workshop
was to improve oil spill response capabilities in the Pacific Region by improving
standards in response planning, equipment, methods, operations and training. To that
end, we have identified state-of-the-art technologies and methodologies available
worldwide and have encouraged cooperation among the APEC Economies. It is my hope
that the recommendations paper and distribution of papers presented at the workshop will
lead to the continued development of an APEC directory of specialists on this issue.

Within APEC, our economies are addressing many issues dealing with trade
liberalization, including pursuing regional and sub-regional liberalization initiatives. In
pursuing these goals, however, APEC is mindful that a large portion of its economics rely
upon a marine environment that is clean. So much of APEC is dependent up the sea.
Within the APEC Marine Resources Conservation Working Group, we understand the
link between viable economies and sustainable development, and we are currently
working to update our Action Plan to reflect emerging issues.

I believe this workshop has been a wonderful success. It implements a call by

APEC Leaders to improve the range and scope of contacts with the business and private
sectors. Representatives from the private and public sectors of APEC economies have
come together this week to highlight existing partnerships, and they have paved the way
for future initiatives. By combining efforts with the ICOPCE conference and Singapore’s
Maritime Week, many new contacts have been made, not only during the organized
events, but also in the margins of this week’s activities. I’d like to add on a personal
level, I believe this workshop has strengthened cooperation among the economies. It has
put a human face to the overarching goals set forth by APEC Senior Officials, and this is
very important. We have indeed acted to implement those goals.

The workshop, once envisioned to be held well over 18 months ago, was
postponed due to scheduling conflicts and also because of the SARS epidemic. I believe
the decision to wait and hold this workshop until now so it would coincide with
Singapore’s Maritime Week and the ICOPCE conference was an excellent idea. I think
you’ll all agree, the synergy of combining this week’s events has been well worth the
wait.

On behalf of the government of the United States of America, I would like to

thank all the participants for coming and contributing to this success. Thank you.