Insights on Chemical and Natech Risk Management in Japan and South Korea: A Review of Current Practices

Abstract

A growing number of natural hazard-triggered technological accidents (Natech) has been reported by several researchers, and this trend is expected to continue due to climate change. As a result, some governments have initiated direct efforts to manage Natech risks, particularly in the United States and Europe. However, two surveys conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2009 and 2017 found that there was a lack of proper risk management and risk governance for Natech among OECD member states, including Japan and South Korea. This study aimed to identify relevant regulations and practical considerations for chemical and Natech risk management from government perspectives in Japan and South Korea. The article provides a review of the current state of risk management, emergency response, and risk communication on chemical and Natech risk management in the two countries, and concludes with a discussion of some of the issues that require improvement of the current chemical risk management. Current practices for chemical risk management in Japan and South Korea point to the possibility of improvements in dealing with the Natech risks. These practical lessons will be valuable for improving the capacity for dealing with challenges in chemical and Natech risk management.

Keywords

Chemical accidents / Government perspectives / Japan / Natech / Risk governance / Risk management / South Korea

References

[1] Antonioni G, Landucci G, Necci A, Gheorghiu D, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2015, 142: 334-345

[2] Araki, Y., A. Hokugo, A.T.K. Pinheiro, N. Ohtsu, and A.M. Cruz. 2021. Explosion at an aluminum factory caused by the July 2018 Japan floods: Investigation of damages and evacuation activities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 69: Article 104352.

[3] Cal OES (Governor's Office of Emergency Services of California). 2020. California accidental release prevention (CalARP) program guidance. https://www.elsegundofd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3516/637545929891270000/. Accessed 24 Aug 2020.

[4] Cozzani V, Antonioni G, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Bonvicini S, Spadoni G. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 28: 10-22

[5] Cruz AM. Challenges in Natech risk reduction. Revista de Ingeniería, 2012, 37: 79-86

[6] Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita: An overview. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2008, 21(6): 620-626

[7] Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(1): 59-65

[8] Cruz, A.M., and M.C. Suarez-Paba. 2019. Advances in Natech research: An overview. Progress in Disaster Science 1: Article 100013.

[9] Cruz AM, Kajitani Y, Tatano H. Paleo UF. Natech disaster risk reduction: Can integrated risk governance help?. Risk governance, 2014, Dordrecht: Springer 441-462.

[10] Cruz, A.M., L.J. Steinberg, A.L.V. Arellano, J.-P. Nordvik, and F. Pisano. 2004. State of the art in Natech risk management. Brussels: European Comission. https://www.unisdr.org/files/2631_FinalNatechStateofthe20Artcorrected.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2020.

[11] EU (European Union). 1982. Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1982/501/oj. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

[12] EU (European Union). 1996. Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1996/82/oj. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

[13] EU (European Union). 2012. Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/18/oj. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

[14] IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2017. Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework, revised version. https://irgc.org/risk-governance/irgc-risk-governance-framework/. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

[15] JCIA (Japan Chemical Industry Association). 2018. Chemical industry of Japan 2018. https://www.nikkakyo.org/sites/default/files/2018%20CHEMICAL%20INDUSTRY%20OF%20JAPAN%20IN%20GRAPHS_0.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020.

[16] KOTRA (Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency). 2019. Specialty chemicals. https://www.kotraspain.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Specialty_Chemicals_leaflet_eng.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2020.

[17] Krausmann E, Baranzini D. Natech risk reduction in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research, 2012, 15(8): 1027-1047

[18] Krausmann E, Cruz AM. Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Natural Hazards, 2013, 67(2): 811-828

[19] Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Salzano E. Natech risk assessment and management: Reducing the risk of natural-hazard impact on hazardous installations, 2017, Amsterdam: Elsevier

[20] Krausmann, E., S. Girgin, and A. Necci. 2019. Natural hazard impacts on industry and critical infrastructure: Natech risk drivers and risk management performance indicators. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 40: Article 101163.

[21] Lee K, Kwon H, Cho S, Kim J, Moon I. Improvements of safety management system in Korean chemical industry after a large chemical accident. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2016, 42: 6-13

[22] Lindell MK, Perry RW. Addressing gaps in environmental emergency planning: Hazardous materials releases during earthquakes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1996, 39(4): 529-544

[23] Luo X, Cruz AM, Tzioutzios D. Extracting Natech reports from large databases: Development of a semi-intelligent Natech identification framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2020, 11(6): 735-750

[24] Luo, X., A.M. Cruz, and D. Tzioutzios. 2021. Climate change and temporal-spatial variation of tropical storm-related Natechs in the United States from 1990 to 2017: Is there a link? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 62: Article 102366.

[25] Masys AJ, Ray-Bennett N, Shiroshita H, Jackson P. High impact/low frequency extreme events: Enabling reflection and resilience in a hyper-connected world. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2014, 18: 772-779

[26] Miller DS. Public trust in the aftermath of natural and na-technological disasters: Hurricane Katrina and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2016, 36(5–6): 410-431

[27] Ministry of Environment, Government of Japan. 2009. A guidance for developing a chemical accident response manual in the local environment department. Tokyo: Ministry of Environment, Government of Japan (in Japanese).

[28] OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020. Natech risk management: 2017–2020 project results. https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282020%294&doclanguage=en. Accessed 15 Feb 2020.

[29] PAJ (Petroleum Association of Japan). 2011. Petroleum industry in Japan: 2011. https://www.paj.gr.jp/english/data/paj2011.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020.

[30] Park, H. 2020. Development of a community-based Natech risk management through the lenses of local community, first responders and government. PhD dissertation. Kyoto University, Japan.

[31] Santella N, Steinberg LJ, Aguirra GA. Empirical estimation of the conditional probability of Natech events within the United States. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(6): 951-968

[32] Sengul H, Santella N, Steinberg LJ, Cruz AM. Analysis of hazardous material releases due to natural hazards in the United States. Disasters, 2012, 36(4): 723-743

[33] Suarez-Paba, M.C., and A.M. Cruz. 2022. A paradigm shift in Natech risk management: Development of a rating system framework for evaluating the performance of industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74: Article 104615.

[34] Suarez-Paba MC, Perreur M, Munoz F, Cruz AM. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades. Safety Science, 2019, 116: 58-77

[35] Tzioutzios, D., and A.M. Cruz. 2021. Sociodemographic influences on public interest in Natech risk information: Insights from Japan and S. Korea. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management 11(1): 83–107.

[36] UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction: 2015–2030. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030. Accessed 25 Mar 2020.

[37] UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2018. Words into action guidelines: Man-made and technological hazards. https://www.undrr.org/publication/words-action-guideline-man-made/technological-hazards. Accessed 20 May 2020.

[38] UNEP DTIE (United Nations Environment Program – Division of Technology, Industry and Economics). 2015. A process for improving community awareness and preparedness for technological hazards and environmental emergencies. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/process-improving-community-awareness-and-preparedness-technological-hazards-and. Accessed 20 May 2020.

[39] US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). n.d. Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule. https://www.epa.gov/rmp/. Accessed 8 Feb 2020.

[40] Whitney DJ, Lindell MK. Member commitment and participation in local emergency planning committees. Policy Studies Journal, 2000, 28(3): 467-484

[41] Yoshimura T. Yusho: 43 years later. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 2012, 28(7S): S49-S52

[42] Yu J, Cruz AM, Hokugo A. Households’ risk perception and behavioral responses to Natech accidents. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2017, 8(1): 1-15