I would also like to comment on the question regarding tests of mechanical-recovery equipment. The NOFO organization, during their annual oil-on-water exercises in the North Sea, will always put mechanical recovery equipment to the test. That means that they actually invite manufacturers to bring out new equipment, and that equipment is put to the test in front of a number of visitors from all around the world, who can witness whether or not the equipment works. So, this is probably the occasion where most mechanical recovery equipment is put to the test.
My question： One recovery method which has gained momentum and increased recognition in the United States is in situ burning. This is something that has not been mentioned in relation to the NAKHODKA spill in Japan. And my question to the Marine Safety Agency or PAJ or whichever body might be the correct one to answer is: Has in situ burning been considered as a method for fighting a major spill in Japan? And if so, what procedures would have to take place to get approval to carry out in situ burning in Japanese waters?
Rφdal： He emphasized that we did a bit of testing of offshore equipment, which we have done in many of our field trials. But I do agree with him that in a lot of offshore mechanical recovery operations, suitable equipment has not been used. And the people who have put it to use haven't had the proper training, and the ships haven't been ideal for the operation. One shouldn't necessarily judge mechanical equipment by past performance .
Suzuki： On in situ burning, Nippon Foundation has subsidized a project in which we, Marine Disaster Prevention Center have done research and investigation for several years. The in situ burning treatment method has been established. A the time of the NAKHODKA incident, there was no rule introducees for in situ burning yet. We requested for official permission to test in situ burning offshore, but in vain. If we were to burn near the shore, we would have opposition from the commnunity. So we couldn't actually do that.
Kudo： The NAKHODKA was an incident that took place on the open sea off our shores. Let us imagine that there was a vessel passing near Hawaii and there took place a spill; and because of the current Hawaii became polluted. I think this problem would not be covered by what was anticipated by OPA '90. But if such an incident were to occur, what would you do?
Bennis： If I understand the question properly, it is, "Should a spill occur in international waters and impact our shores, how would OPA '90 handle that situation?" Quite simply, if there is a substantial threat to the shores of the United States from an incident, regardless of where that incident may occur, we can then utilize the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund created under OPA '90. We, the Coast Guard would contract for a cleanup contractor to respond to that incident. We would use all the tools we've gathered under OPA '90. We would go to our list of Oil Spill Response Oganizations. We would go to our response inventory, and we would then contract with a cleanup contractor to attack that problem.
Imaichi： In the NAKHODKA incident, as time went on, the oil became heavier and congealed. Have you not thought of making it solid, instead of dispersing? If it were solidified, it might be removed easily. Then 5 or 10% rate for mechanical recovery could be improved.
Lessard： Our research program has taken the industry lead on solidifiers for the last 3 years, under the umbrella of the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, which is an organization that brings together petroleum companies to jointly fund studies. It is an exception to the antitrust rules of the United States that allows us to pool resources and work together on environmental matters. Under that umbrella, we have been studying the application of solidifiers for spills on water and on land, and have issued several reports on that. The bottom line is that there are a number of solidifier materials. These are polymers that actually react and bond with hydrocarbons, often leading to a solid mass that can be physically removed from the water, or from the soil. However, they are most effective when the oil is very light. On a diesel or gasoline spill, for example, the rate is very fast, and the efficiency is very good. However, it is a rate process, so the thicker and the heavier the oil, the longer it takes. And often, with a very heavy oil, such as you had in the NAKHODKA spill, the outside of the polymer becomes plugged up with these large molecules, and the efficiency becomes very low. And so if we had very light oil spills, solidifiers would be very applicable. But for heavy oils, it is less so.
