Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 161–183 | Cite as

Assessment of the chemical concentrations and the environmental risk of tank cleaning effluents in the Baltic Sea

  • Milja Honkanen
  • Jani HäkkinenEmail author
  • Antti Posti
Article

Abstract

The environmental risks of tank cleaning waters were evaluated in this study by conducting a risk assessment of five target chemicals (nonylphenol, phenol, sulphuric acid, styrene and xylenes) following EU risk assessment methodology in which the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) of the chemicals are determined and compared to their corresponding predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs). The results of the risk assessment demonstrated the importance of prewashing cargo tanks ashore before the main washing. Without prewashing the cargo tanks and discharging the generated prewashing effluents into reception facilities ashore, the PEC/PNEC ratios obtained for further washings exceed accepted levels regardless of the chemical and the quantity of chemical residue (15:50:300 l). In contrast, if the cargo tanks are prewashed and the remaining prewash residues in the tanks are small (≤15 l), the risk arising from tank cleaning effluents stays at accepted levels, and no harm is caused to aquatic organisms. When the prewash residue is around 50 l, the risk arising from further washings mostly remains at accepted levels. Whenever the prewashing is carried out, the tank washings only represent a minor and local risk for water biota. The study showed that prewashing requirements for the most hazardous category of X cargoes and high-viscosity and solidifying Y cargoes are necessary to keep the hazards arising from these substances at accepted levels. Furthermore, MARPOL Y class also includes persistent and toxic chemicals whose release in the sea without prewashing is not recommended, even if the regulations might not necessarily require prewashing.

Keywords

Tank cleaning effluents Impact assessment Marine environment PEC/PNEC ratio The Baltic Sea 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted as a part of the Chembaltic (Risks of Maritime Transportation of Chemicals in Baltic Sea) project which gathers information on chemicals transported in the Baltic Sea. The authors would like to extend their special thanks to the European Regional Development Fund and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes), the companies and other stakeholders supporting the research projects, and all research partners and co-workers involved in the project. The publication reflects the authors’ views. The Managing Author cannot be held liable for the information published.

References

  1. Andersson H, Palm Cousins A, Brorström-Lundén E, Wickman T, Pettersson M, Holmström K, Fischer S, Parkman T (2012) Summary report SWEDEN. Work package 4: identification of sources and estimation of inputs/impacts on the Baltic Sea. IVL, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. ATSDR (2008) Toxicological profile for phenol. US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/. Accessed 18 Jun 2012
  3. Benville PE, Korn S (1977) The acute toxicity of six monocyclic aromatic crude oil components to striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and bay shrimp (Crago franciscorum). California Fish and Game 63(4):204–209Google Scholar
  4. Black JA, Birge WE, McDonnell WE, Westerman AG, Ramey BA, Bruser DM (1982) The aquatic toxicity of organic compounds to embryo-larval stages of fish and amphibians. Research report no 133, University of Kentucky, Water Resources Institute, Lexington, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooke LT (1993) Acute and chronic toxicity of nonylphenol to ten species of aquatic organisms. Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, (contract no. 68-C1-0034). Lake Superior Research Institute, University of Wisconsin–Superior, SuperiorGoogle Scholar
  6. Butterworth Inc. (2012) Product Data Sheet. Tank cleaning machine, type: LT & LT-FT. http://www.butterworth.com/Data_Sheets/LT_LTFT_Tank_Clean_DS.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2012
  7. CEDRE (2008) Chemical response guide. Xylenes. Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. CEFIC (2005) Daphnia magna reproduction test with p-xylene. DHI Water & EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  9. CEPA (2000) Priority substances list assessment reports: phenol. Minister of Supply and Services. http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/subs_list/Priority.cfm. Accessed 14 Aug 2012
  10. Cushman JR, Rausina GA, Cruzan G, Gilbert J, Williams E, Harrass MC, Sousa JV, Putt AE, Garvey NA, St Laurent JP, Hoberg JR, Machado MV (1997) Ecotoxicity hazard assessment of styrene. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 37:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drew Marine (2005) Tank cleaning manual, 5th edn. Ashland Inc., BoontonGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment or existing substances Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market Part II. Office for official publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. FEA (2012) Protection of the Baltic Sea. http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=17722&lan=en. Accessed 11 Jul 2012
  14. Ferrari GM, Boa FG, Babin M (2003) Geo-chemical and optical characterizations of suspended matter in European coastal waters. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 57:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fliedner A (1993) Daphnia magna, Reproduction test (OECD No. 202). FraunhoferBInstitute fur Umweltchemie und Okotoxikologie, Postfach 1260, WB5948 Schmallenberg B Grafschaft, Germany. Report No. UBAB002/4B22Google Scholar
  16. French McKay DP, Whittier N, Ward M, Santos C (2006) Spill hazard evaluation for chemicals shipped in bulk using modelling. Environ Model Softw 21:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galassi S, Mingazzini M, Vigano L, Cesareo D, Tosato ML (1988) Approaches to modelling toxic responses of aquatic organisms to aromatic hydrocarbons. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 16:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GESAMP, IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (2002) The Revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemical Substances Carried by Ships. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 64, 126 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Håkanson L, Lundin LC, Savchuk O, Ionov V, Musielak S, Furmanczyk K (2003) The Baltic Sea. In: Ryden L, Migula P, Andersson M (eds) Environmental science. The Baltic University Press, Uppsala, pp 120–146Google Scholar
  20. Hänninen S, Rytkönen J (2006) Transportation of liquid bulk chemicals by tankers in the Baltic Sea. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Publications, 595. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2006/P595.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2012
  21. HELCOM (1993) Seminar on reception facilities in ports. Turku, Finland, 16–19 November 1992. Balt. Sea. Environ. Proc. No. 50. http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Publications/Proceedings/bsep50.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012
  22. HELCOM (2010) Hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea—an integrated thematic assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 120B. http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Publications/Proceedings/bsep120B.pdf. Accessed 2 Jul 2012
  23. Holma E, Heikkilä A, Helminen R, Kajander S (2011) Baltic Port List 2011—annual cargo statistics of ports in the Baltic Sea Region. A publication from the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of TurkuGoogle Scholar
  24. HSDB (2012) Hazardous substances data bank. Maintained by US National Library of Medicine. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB. Accessed 18 Jul 2012
  25. Hurford N, Law RJ, Payne AP, Fileman TW (1989) Concentrations of chemicals in the North Sea arising from discharges from chemical tankers. Oil & Chemical Pollution 5:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurford N, Law RJ, Fileman TW, Payne AP, Colcomb-Heiliger K (1990) Concentrations of chemicals in the North Sea due to operational discharges from chemical tankers—results from the second survey, October 1988. Oil & Chemical Pollution 7:251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. HUTA CYNKU (2011) Material safety data sheet. Sulphuric acid technical. HUTA CYNKU Miasteczko Śląskie S.A. Poland. http://www.hcm.com.pl/sites/default/files/kch_kwas_siarkowy_techniczny_EN_12_12_2011.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2012
  28. IMO, International Maritime Organization (2008) IMO Marine Environment Policy. Background paper. International Maritime Organization. Marine Environment Division. In: Sixteenth OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum—Part 1: “Maritime and inland waterways co-operation in the OSCE area: Increasing security and protecting the environment”, Vienna, 28–29 January 2008. http://www.osce.org/eea/30453. Accessed at 23 Aug 2012
  29. IMO (2011a) Particularly sensitive sea areas. http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/PSSAs/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed 11 Jul 2012
  30. Isobe T, Nishiyama H, Nakashima A, Takada H (2001) Distribution and behaviour of nonylphenol, octylphenol, and nonylphenol monoetoxylate in Tokyo metropolitan area: their association with aquatic particles and sedimentary distributions. Environ Sci Technol 35:1041–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IUCLID dataset (2000) Phenol, substance ID: 108-95-2. 175 p. European Commission, European Chemicals BureauGoogle Scholar
  32. Koskela S, Seppälä J, Hiltunen MR, Mattila T (2006) Kemikaalin häiriöpäästön ympäristöriskinarviointi EUSES-mallilla [Assessing the environmental risk of a chemical release with the EUSES-model]. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 5/2006 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  33. Kunichkin V (2006) Chemical Tanker Notes. 234 p. Seamanship International Ltd., LanarkshireGoogle Scholar
  34. Lide DR (2005) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 86th edn. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  35. Lide DR (2009) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 89th edn. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  36. Lilja K, Norström K, Remberger M, Kaj L, Egelrud L, Junedahl E, Brorström-Lundén E, Ghebremeskel M, Schlabach M (2009) Screening of selected hazardous substances in the Eastern Baltic marine environment. IVL, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  37. Lussier SM, Champlin D, LiVolsi J, Poucher S, Pruell JR (2000) Acute toxicity of para-nonylphenol to saltwater animals. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:617–621Google Scholar
  38. MacKay D, Shiu WY, Ma KC, Lee SC (2006) Handbook of physical–chemical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis /CRC. Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  39. Mamaca E, Bechmann RK, Torgrimsen S, Aas E, Bjørnstad A, Baussant T, Le Floch S (2005) The neutral red lysosomal retention assay and Comet assay on haemolymph cells from mussels (Mytilus edulis) and fish (Symphodus melops) exposed to styrene. Aquat Toxicol 75(3):191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGeorge HD (1995) Marine auxiliary machinery, 7th edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Mercier JA, Hires RI, Wu M (1974) Model study on the dilution of soluble liquids discharged from tankers. Final report. Stevens Inst. of Tech. Davidson Lab, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  42. NesteOil (2006) Ympäristölupapäätös [Environmental permit decision]. Länsi-Suomen Ympäristölupavirasto. Ympäristöpäätös Nro 29/2006/2. Dnro LSY-2004-Y-120 (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  43. Nikunen E, Leinonen R (2002) Ympäristölle vaaralliset kemikaalit—riskinarviointi ja luokitus [Environmentally hazardous chemicals—risk assessment and classification]. Chemas Oy, Helsinki (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  44. OECD (2001) SIDS. Sulphuric acid CAS no. 7664-93-9. UNEPGoogle Scholar
  45. Posti A, Häkkinen J (2012) Survey of transportation of liquid bulk chemicals in the Baltic Sea. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku, A 60. 78 pGoogle Scholar
  46. Qureshi AA, Flod KW, Thompson SR, Janhurst SM, Inniss CS, Rokosh DA (1982) Comparison of a luminescent bacterial test with other bioassays for determining toxicity of pure compounds and complex effluents. In: Pearsonm JG, Foster RB, Bishop WE (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment. 5th Conference. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 179–195. http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP36718S.htm. Accessed 25 Jul 2008
  47. Sormunen O (2012) Spill estimation of chemical tanker collisions in the Gulf of Finland. Master's thesis, Aalto University School of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  48. Tanker Operator (2008) The science of cargo tank cleaning. TankerOperator Magazine 7(8)Google Scholar
  49. Verwey A (2007) Tank cleaning guide, 7th edn. Verwey Chemical Laboratories & Superintendence Company, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  50. Ward TJ, Boeri RL (1990) Acute static toxicity of nonylphenol to the marine alga (Skeletonema costatum). Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association by Resource Analysts, Hampton, New Hampshire (study no. 8970-CMA)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Maritime StudiesUniversity of TurkuKotkaFinland

Personalised recommendations