545
1 INTRODUCTION
Most of the worldʹs maritime ports are important
concentrations of economic activity, potential
development,and,atthesametime,majorsourcesof
pollution, imposing major risks. Furthermore, giant
ships, with giant engines running on conventional
fuels, with significant journeys made by diesel
vehicles (in a single day),
diesel locomotives with
kilometer‐long trains, as well as other polluting
equipment and similar port activities lead to a
significant number of environmentaleffects that can
seriously disturb local communities and the
environmentsurroundingtheharbors.Thesetypesof
impactsrangefromincreasedriskofdiseases,suchas
respiratory disease
or different types of cancer, to
increased regional smog, poor water quality, and
harmtolocalcommunitiesorpubliclands.
MostofEuropeʹsmajorportshavebeenconstantly
expanding to accommodate larger ships, as well as
higher volumes of cargo. The annual growth of
international trade has led to a
corresponding rapid
increaseinthe number of goods transportedby sea,
this being the most cost‐efficient mean of
transportation [1]. Despite the enormous growth in
the shipping sector, in general, most pollution
preventioneffortsattheregionalandnationallevels,
until now, have focused mainly on other sources of
pollution, while the environmental impact on ports
hassubstantiallyincreased.
Inthiscontext,maritimeportsarenowamongthe
leastregulatedsourcesofpollutionintheworld.This
leadstothefact thatmost portsareheavypolluters,
releasinguncontrollableanduncontrolledamountsof
emissions with a major impact on air
and water
Environmental Risk Assessment in the Background
of Armed Conflict in the Black Sea Area. A Case Study
for a Container Terminal in the Port of Constanța
N.O.Stefanov&L.Rauca
UniversityPolitehnicaofBucharest,Bucharest,Romania
ABSTRACT:Theyear2022wasmarkedbyeconomicriskswithpotentiallyverysensitiveimpactsforcountries
in the Black Sea region. Given the limited capacity of Ukrainian ports, aswellas the sanctionsimposed on
Russia,duetoongoingconflict,itwasnecessarytoidentify
newdestinationscapableoftakingovertheflowof
goodsthatnormallywenttothecountriesinvolvedinthisconflict.Inadditiontotherisksspecifictomaritime
transport, the risk of armed conflict comes with new challenges that can also materialize in the form of
environmentalimpact.Toanalyze
thispotentialimpact,thestudyisbeingfocusedmainlyontheanalysisofthe
pollutionriskgeneratedbytheemissionscausedbythevesselscallingthecontainerterminalCSCT,locatedin
Constanțaharbor,andtheemissionsgeneratedbythevehiclesmovingintheterminal.Asestimatedfromthe
startall
levelsofpollutionhaveincreased,withthelevelofCO2increasingfrom11072.7tonsin2021to11915.7
tons in 2022. The NOx emissions have a similar trend, as well as the other emission level measured and
calculated.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.05
546
quality in nearby communities, endangering health,
andaffectingmarinehabitats[2].
Figure1. Cardiopulmonary mortality related to shipping
PMemissionsinglobalportareas[1]
Nevertheless,vessels operating in ports, vehicles,
trains, cranes, and other cargo handling equipment,
release large amounts of air pollution affecting the
healthofharborworkersandpeoplelivinginnearby
livingareas,contributinginasignificantmannertoair
pollutionataregionallevelingeneral.
Many epidemiologic studies have proven
that
diesel exhaust emissions increase the risk of cancer,
whilea2020 California state studyfound thatdiesel
emissions are responsible for at least70% of cancer‐
related illnesses, all of these being caused by air
pollution [1]. In a similar way, more recent studies
havelinkeddieselexhaustemissions
todiseasessuch
as asthma. Most of the air pollutants from diesel
engineswhicharegeneratedinmaritimeharbors,that
can affect human health include particulate matter
(knownasPM), volatileorganiccompounds(known
as VOCs), nitrogen oxides (known as NOx), and
sulfuroxides (knownas SOx). Ontheresearchdone
on cruise ships calling Dubrovnik, emissions from
vessels are a major source of pollution, affecting
human health and natural environment [13]. The
same study is highlighting that the trend is the
increasingofcruisevesselsinthearea,thustheneed
ofmeasurestolimittheemissionsquantities.
Thebiggest
numberof port‐related sourcesof air
pollution can mainly be attributed to the fact that
pollutionfromvehicles, power plants,andrefineries
is somewhat controlled by applying local, regional,
andnationalregulations,whilethebiggestamountof
strictly port‐related pollution has continued to
increase with very little regulatory control
being
applied.
Port operations can cause significant damage to
water quality and subsequently to marine life and
related ecosystems, as well as human health. These
effectsmayincludebacterialandviralcontamination
ofcommercialfishandshellfish,depletionofoxygen,
as well as bioaccumulation of certain toxins in fish.
Major
waterqualityconcernsinportsincludesewage
and toxic discharges from ships, stormwater runoff,
anddredgingactivities.
2 REVIEWOFINTERNATIONALANDREGIONAL
REGULATIONS
2.1 Internationalregulation
In the 8th‐9th decades of the 20th century, the
environmental protection policy represented a new
directionofactionfor Europe, thegreenparties
and
non‐governmental organizations being the first to
press for the acceptance of higher standards of the
regulationthantheywouldhavebeenadoptedatthe
nationallevel[4].Thissituationchangedinthe1990s,
when the stronger European economic climate and
the recognition of all the costs of environmental
protection (which had not been anticipated in the
past), led to a much more cautious approachto this
matter.
During this period there were a series of
discussions,notonlyattheEuropeanlevelbutalsoat
the world level, especially in the context of the UN
(UnitedNations) FrameworkConvention
onClimate
Change (UNFCCC). This Convention was signed in
1992,atthesummitorganizedbytheUnitedNations
in Rio de Janeiro, by 154 states. It contains the
commitmentofindustrializedcountriestoreducethe
emissionsofgasesthatproducethegreenhouseeffect.
In addition to this, it was decided
to regularly hold
conferenceswiththe signatory states on thetopicof
climate protection. The framework convention for
climateenteredintoforcein1994andhassincebeen
ratifiedbyalmostallthecountriesoftheworld.
Consequently, after the year 2000, the European
environmental policy developed from a smallgroup
ofmainlytechnicalmeasurestooneofthemostwell‐
known aspects of the European Unionʹs activity,
covering, today, almost the entire spectrum of
environmental problems. The promotion of
sustainable development and a high level of
environmentalprotectionwereincludedasimportant
objectivesintheEuropeantreaties.
Thefirst
measuresthatweretakenwereintended
toimprovethequalityoflife,reducepollution,aswell
as introducing the principle of pollution prevention
[5]. These three objectives were added, and later,
prudenceintheuseofnaturalresources.
As far as the Treaty of Lisbon is concerned, it
reiteratesthatthe
environmentisoneoftheareasin
which the attributions belong both to the European
Union and to the Member States and that, when it
intervenesinthisarea,theUnion mustcontributeto
the achievement of clear objectives: preserving,
protecting and improving the quality of the
environment; protection of
peopleʹs health;
encouraging a sensible and rational use of natural
resources; the international promotion of measures
designed to counter environmental problems on a
regional or global scale and especially the fight
againstclimatechange.
TheIMOregulationunderMARPOL,inregardto
emissions, have been gradually strengthen and the
maximum
sulfurlimitinfueloilissetto0.1%inECA
areasand0.5%inotherareas,from1
st
January2020.
From1
st
January2021,NorthSeaandBalticSeaareas
are added intoECA Tier 3, requiring a reductionof
NOxwith80%relativetoTier1[14].
547
2.2 Regionalregulation
In the field of marine environment protection, the
Danube‐Black Sea region is facing an important
problem.TheBlackSeaareaisofgreatimportancefor
Romania, both for tourism, and for the fishing
industry,energy,andnavigation.Theintensiveuseof
thewatersoftheBlack
Seainrecentyears,however,
created great problems stemming from the
degradation of water quality and quantity and
drastically reduced biodiversity. The pollution that
comestotheDanubestopsintheBlackSeaandaffects
alargearea,andforthisreason,theEuropeanUnion
strivestodeterminethecountries
intheregiontoact
in improving the quality of the environment in the
area.
Europerepresentsthelargestoilimportingmarket,
importing approximately one‐third of the total oil
worldwide. 90% of all oil and oil products are
transported to and from Europe by sea, which
inevitably generates pollution. Either
because of
accidentsorsimplythroughmaritimeoperations,the
marineenvironmentisdegraded,spillingoilintothe
water constitutes a threat to the environment, and
nationalauthoritiesareresponsibleforwaterclean‐up
operations [7]. Under these conditions, subregional
cooperation intensified, also determined by the
emergence of new problems that
necessitated the
adoption of a special protection regime against the
degradation of the marine environment. IMO drew
up, at the beginning of the 1990s, the project of a
RegionalContingencyPlantocombatoilpollutionof
theBlackSea,aplanfinalizedatthelevelofexpertsin
twomeetingsand
ratifiedbythecountriesbordering
theBlackSea.
Figure2.Newexclusiveeconomic zone delimitation inthe
BlackSeaaftertheinvasionofUkraine[9]
The Regional Contingency Plan was signed by
Romania,Bulgaria,andTurkeyin2003.Aspartofthis
RegionalPlan,theNationalPollutionResponsePlan,
mentioned throughout this paper, was approved in
Romania. On April 21, 1992, in Bucharest, the
representatives of the riparian states of the Pontic
basin, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania,
the Russian
Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine, signed the
ConventionontheProtectionoftheBlackSeaagainst
Pollution, accompanied by: the Protocol on the
ProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentoftheBlackSea
against land‐based pollution and the Protocol on
cooperationincombatingpollutionwithoilandother
harmful
substances of the Black Sea marine
environmentagainstdischargepollution.
Atthesametime,intheperiodofpre‐adherenceto
the European Union, but also after that, measures
were taken in Romania to improve the state of the
waters of the Danube and the BlackSea. Despite all
this, the
state of marine ecosystems remains a
sensitive subject, primarily due to the pressures
exerted by the socioeconomic system [6]. Based on
this,anevaluationoftheecologicalstateofthemarine
environment along the Romanian coast takes place
annually, through the analysis of the physical,
chemical,andbiologicalcomponents.Thanks
tothese
measures, an improvement in the ecological state of
the Black Sea ecosystem has been observed, such as
blooms have been reduced (to the point of
disappearing in some places), the mass mortality of
organismshasdecreased,andsomehavereappeared
organismsthatwereconsideredextinct.
The research activity on
the basis of which the
marineenvironmentisassessediscarriedoutbythe
National Institute of Marine Research and
DevelopmentGrigoreAntipa fromConstanta,which
operateswithfinancial support from the Ministryof
Environment and Water Management. Romania got
involved, being especially active in the Consultative
Groups for biodiversity
conservation and pollution
control and monitoring, contributed to the
preparationofthejointreportontheecologicalstate
oftheBlackSeaecosystem,aswellastothedefinition
ofthelistsofspeciesthatcanbefoundinAnnexesII
and IV of the Protocol on the Conservation of
Biodiversity
andtheNaturalFrameworkoftheBlack
Sea.
3 RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
Theresearchisfocusedonanalysingthepollutionrisk
from the emissions caused by the vessels calling
terminal CSCT, located in Constanta, Romania, and
the emissions generated by vehicles moving in the
terminal.Basedonpublicinformationand[3],
in2021
‐ 88 container vessels and in 2022 – 85 container
vesselsarrivedattheterminal.CSCTterminalconsists
offiveberths,from121to125.
In the context of the Russia‐Ukraine conflict that
started on February 24, 2022, the situation had
negative repercussions not only for Ukraine but
for
theentireBlackSearegion.
Overall, the year 2021 represents a real turning
point in overcoming economic problems caused by
the COVID‐19 pandemic related to limited business
activities, but there is no doubt that the year 2022
brought new challenges. Due to the conflict, the
Ukrainian economy is at
a standstill, seaports are
closed,andcommercialshipsarenotallowedtoenter,
therefore import/export with trading partners is
restricted[9].AsUkraineaccountedforaboutathird
of Black Sea container turnover, the conflict had a
significant negative impact on the region, leadingto
548
an estimated 35% reduction in container volumes in
2022.
Containerized cargo volumes in the terminals
operatedalongtheBlackSearegionincreasedby2.6%
in 2021 (a total of 2,425,671 TEU) compared to the
previous year, which can be considered a sign of a
post‐pandemic economic recovery. The volume
of
cargo containers increased in all countries except
Georgia.ThelargestincreasewasachievedbyRussia
with11.97%,whileinGeorgiatherewasadecreaseof
12.70%. However, Ukraine maintained its leading
positionintheBlackSearegion,withatotalvolume
of containerized cargo of 829,725 TEU, followed by
Russiawith660,581TEU,andRomania–with481,210
TEU [9]. The volume of imports in the mentioned
countriesincreased by2.38% compared to 2020. The
largest increase in the volume of imports was
recordedbyRussiaandRomania–10.39%and6.37%,
respectively. In Ukraine and Bulgaria, there was an
increase of 5.56% and 0.64%, while in Georgia the
volumeofimportsdecreasedby17.79%.Exportsfrom
theregionincreasedby2.88%,mainlyduetoincreases
inthevolumeofexportsfromRussiaandGeorgiaof
14.01%and14.20%.InBulgaria,therewasanincrease
intheexportvolumeof
fullcontainers–4.68%,while
theexportvolumeinUkraineandRomaniadecreased
by3.87%and1.28%,inthatorder.
Thus,thepercentageofloadedcontainervolumes
handled by each country in 2021 was distributed as
follows: Ukraine – 34.21%, Russia (Black Sea) –
27.23%,Romania–19.84%,Georgia– 10.20%,
Bulgaria
–8.52%.
The current situation has significantly disrupted
theregionalsupplychainintheBlackSeabasinand
led to operational difficulties, such as the
repositioning of Ukrainian import flows to different
countriesintheregionandthedeliveryofpartofthe
goods via other modes of transport.
This obviously
leads to an increase in additional demurrage and
detention, and storage costs for containers loaded
with destination Ukraine. Operational difficulties,
especially in planning for empty containers,
ultimately create problems in supply chains,
becominginevitablyaglobalissue.
It is important to note that Russia is also an
important part
of the Black Sea region through the
port of Novorossiysk. According to international
sanctions against Russia, a dramatic reduction in
container traffic is expected in the port of
Novorossiysk (only food, humanitarian and medical
goodsareallowed).
Dueto the imposed sanctions, the main shipping
containerlinesdonotreceive
goodsofRussianorigin,
therefore it is expected that the Black Sea container
traffic will decrease by about 25% and the monthly
volumes in the region will decrease by about 60%
(depending on how long the conflict lasts and the
sanctions). Only a small part of these volumes (8%)
represents intra
‐regional containerized maritime
traffic. The remaining 52% are container volumes
connectedbyoceanroutestoAsia,Europe,America,
andAfrica[8].
InternationalsanctionsagainstRussia,inaddition
to suspending the transport of goods of Russian
origin, have a significant negative impact on
containerized cargo volumes from neighbouring
countriesandon
maritimetransportservices.Thearea
covering the Caucasus and Central Asia countries
representsaclearexampleofthisfact,havinginmind
themainideathattheBlackSeabasinisagatewayto
Asiancountries.Asaresultoftheexistingrestrictions,
thefreight transport of Russian‐ownedcompaniesis
alsorejected.
Inthelongterm,theimpactofRussianaggression
inUkraineoncontainertrafficintheBlackSearegion
hasseveraldirections.Atthistime,itisimpossibleto
predict exactly how much these countries will be
affected.Itwillbepossibletoaccuratelyrecordpost‐
factum losses
when we have available statistics on
containerturnoverfromthepastperiod.
3.1 Calculationmethodology
The calculation of the ships and vehicles’ emissions
was realized using a software/calculation tool
developed by The Technological University of
Denmark (DTU) and the University of Southern
Denmark. The software is calculating the main
pollutants (CO2,
NOx, SOx, CO, HC, and PM) and
fueloilconsumption.Byenteringthemainparticulars
ofthevesselandnauticalinformation,thecalculation
tool returns approximate emission figures [12]. The
pollutantsweredeterminedintwosituations:during
theportstayandwhilemanoeuvringfrom/tothepilot
station. In the Constanț
a South Container Terminal,
alsoknown as theCSCT terminal,the distance from
the pilot boarding ground and the berth is
approximately 3 NM. For the calculation of
manoeuvringemissions,eachportcallwasconsidered
twice.Forthevehicles’emissions,theemissionswere
calculated considering the EURO norm, the average
weight
of a container, and the driving distance. For
thisstudy,allvehicleswereconsideredEUROnorm5,
theaverageweightofacontainerwasdeemedtobe
15 t and the driving distance in the terminal was
considered10km.
Figure3. Constanța South ContainerTerminal (aerialvew)
[4]
The ship’s emissions are determined using the
belowgeneralformula[2]:
Emission=FOCxCFxEF
549
where:
FOCisFuelOilConsumption
CF is Control Factor‐depends on the emission
reductiontechnology
EFistheEmissionFactor
3.2 Casestudy
Thestudycalculatesthetotalemissionduringtheport
stayandduringmanoeuvringintheCSCTterminalin
Constanța, Romania, in 2021 and 2022. In
2021, 443
ships’ calls, and in 2022, 406 ships’ calls were
registeredattheterminal[11].Eventhoughthetotal
numberofthevesselisslightlylower,thedurationof
port stay in 2022 was over 1 500 hrs longer. This
indicates that the emission quantities increased in
2022compared
with2021(asitispresentedinTables
4and6).
Observations:
2022 statistics (in terms of the number of vessels
andvehicles)werenotofficiallyreleased,thecase
studyisbasedonnon‐officialdata;
All vehicles were considered EURO norm 5 and
theaverageweightofa
vehiclewas15t;
Theemissions are based on a shipmodelanddo
not consider any retrofits which might decrease
thepollution.
The summary regardingthe number of vessels is
presentedinTable1.
Itis noticedthatthenumberofsmallfeedershas
considerably increased in 2022
compared with 2021.
Theaverageyearofconstructionofthesamevessels
hasdecreasedby11years.
Table2.Numberofvehiclesintheterminalin2021and2022
________________________________________________
Year Noofvehicles
________________________________________________
2021 158530
2022 206161
Total 364691
________________________________________________
Thenumberof vehiclesin2022increasedby25%
comparedwith2021,whichmeansthatthenumberof
TEUs increased and explains the increase in vessels’
portstay.
3.3 Resultsofemissioncalculation
Thefollowingtablesshowthesummaryofemissions
bytypeofpollutant.Thecalculationsweredoneboth
during
manoeuvring and berthing, using the
calculation tool presented in 3.1 Calculation
Methodology. As per [8], the type of fuel used in
ConstantaroadsisMGOwith0.1%sulphurcontent.
It is observed that, even if the number of calls
decreased in 2022, the total duration of port stay
increasedby
15%,meaningthatthequantityofcargo
increasedin2022,comparedto2021.
Table1.SummaryofthevesselscallingCSCTterminalin2021and2022(adaptedfrom[3])
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Vesselsize(TEU) Noofvesselsbysize Noofcallsbysize Totalportstaybysize(hrs) Averageyearofbuiltbysize
2021 20222021 2022 2021 20222021 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
<10006 158 61 203.1 874.12007 1996
1001‐200035 31197 168 2869.7 3333.82003 2003
2001‐300026 24164 143 3603.5 4100.62000 2001
>300021 1574 34 2485.8 2390.12011 2012
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total88 85443 406 9162.1 10698.6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure4.Totalportstaybysize(hrs)
Figure5.Numberofcallsbyvesselsizein2021‐2022
550
Table3.Summaryofemissionspersizeofthevesselduringtheportstayin2021(adaptedfrom[3])
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Size(TEU) Noofvessels Totalportstay(hrs) CO2(t) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) CO(kg) HC(kg) PM(kg)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
<1000 6203.142 648.5 27.5 33.8 33.8 18.2
1001‐2000 352869.71165.9 18007.3 761.6 937.9 937.9 504.7
2001‐3000 263603.52532.8 39121.7 1661.1 2037.6 2037.6 1096.9
>3001 212485.85713.5 88271.3 3743.8 4597.9 4597.9 2474.4
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 889162.19454.2 146048.8 6194 7607.2 7607.2 4094.2
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table4.Summaryofemissionspersizeofthevesselduringmanoeuvringin2021(adaptedfrom[3])
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Size(TEU) Noofvessels NoofcallsCO2(kg) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) CO(kg) HC(kg) PM(kg)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
<1000 682712 55.8 01.9 2.28 1.14
1001‐2000 35197125652 2653.8 118.2 89.3 107.9 58.9
2001‐3000 26164143658 3022.8 98.4 100.3 124.6 65.9
>3001 2174102150 2020.2 6973.9 86.6 46.8
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 88443374172 7752.6 285.6 265.4 321.38 172.74
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table5.Summaryofemissionspersizeofvesselduringportstayin2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Size(TEU) Noofvessels Totalportstay(hrs) CO2(kg) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) CO(kg) HC(kg) PM(kg)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
<1000 15874.1146.3 2268.7 97.3 119.5 119.5 65.1
1001‐2000 313333.81294.7 19984.1 848.7 1040.4 1040.4 559.9
2001‐3000 244100.62689.5 43452 1838.7 2263.3 2263.3 1218.6
>3001 152390.15733.9 88640.4 3758.8 4617.1 4617.1 2484.8
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 8510698.69864.4 154345.2 6543.5 8040.3 8040.3 4328.4
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table6.Summaryofemissionspersizeofthevesselduringmanoeuvringin2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Size(TEU) Noofvessels Noofcalls CO2(kg) NOx(kg) SOx(kg) CO(kg) HC(kg) PM(kg)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
<1000 156121036 454.8 7.3 15.2 18.7 9.9
1001‐2000 31168 100536 2098.2 100.8 71.3 84.3 47.1
2001‐3000 24143 127590 2728.8 85.8 90111.8 58.7
>3001 153453802 1054.8 39 39.5 45.8 24.2
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 85406 302964 6336.6 232.9 216 260.6 139.9
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table7.Totalemissionsatberthandduringmanoeuvringin2021and2022(t)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
CO2NOxSOxCOHCPM
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Atberth 9454.2 9864.4 146.1 154.3 6.2 6.5 7.6 8.0 7.6 8.0 4.1 4.3
Maneuv. 374.2 303.0 7.8 6.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 9828.4 10167.4 153.9 160.7 6.5 6.8 7.9 8.3 7.9 8.3 4.3 4.5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure6.Totalemissionsatberthin2021and2022(t)
Figure7.Totalemissionsduringmanoeuvringin2021and2022(t)
551
Table 7 summaries the emissions at berth and
during manoeuvring in 2021 and 2022. At berth, all
theemissions,haveincreasedduetolongerduration
of port stay. Because the number of vessels has
decreasedin2022,theemissionduringmanoeuvrings
hasslightlydecreasedin2022,comparedwith2021.
Table8.Totalemissionsbyvehicles(2021&2022)(t)
________________________________________________
Year Noof CO2 NOxSOxCOHCPM
vehicles
________________________________________________
2021 158530 1344.33 4.20 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.04
2022 206161 1748.25 5.46 0.01 0.27 0.04 0.05
________________________________________________
Total 364691 3092.58 9.66 0.02 0.47 0.07 0.09
________________________________________________
Thenumberofvehiclesincreasedby30%in2022,
thereforeallemissionsquantitieshaveincreased,with
CO
2havingthemostsignificantimpact.
Figure8.TotalCO2emissionsbyvehicles2021and2022(t)
4 CONCLUSIONS
Thecasestudyofthisresearchwasfocusedmainlyon
the analysis of the pollution risk generated by the
emissionscausedbythevesselscallingthecontainer
terminalCSCT,locatedinConstantaharbor,Romania,
andemissions generatedby the vehiclestravelingin
theterminal.
Thefocusofthestudy
triestodetermineifthereis
a correlation between high‐risk events (such as the
war in Ukraine) and the risk of higher pollution in
portareassuchasConstanța,oncethemaincontainer
traffichasbeendirectedtootherportsintheBlackSea
area,Constanțabeing
onelargestportinthisarea.
The information gathered to achieve the main
objective of this study has been available from the
official reports of CSCT keeping in mind the main
containervessels,with 443 container vessels’callsin
CSCTin2021,and406containervessels’callsatthis
terminal in
2022. Even if the number of vessels has
decreased official numbers show that the TEU
numberhandledintheoverallConstanțaharborhas
increased. It is important to mention that occupies
only a small part of this port, the CSCT terminal
consistsofonlyfiveberths,fromNo.121
toNo.125.
As presented, certain categories of ships had a
moreintensepresenceintheharborin2022,whichis
whythenumberofcallshasincreasedalongwiththe
totaldurationofportstay.Asestimatedfromthestart
alllevelsofpollutionhaveincreased,withthelevelof
CO2 increasing from 11072.7tons in 2021 to 11915.7
tonsin2022.TheNOxemissionshaveasimilartrend,
as well as the other emission level measured and
calculated.
REFERENCES
[1]Kristensen, H. O., “Energy demand and exhaust gas
emissionsofmarineengines”,CleanShippingCurrents,
Vol.1(6),pp.18‐26,Jun.2012;
[2]Lee,H.,Park,D.,Choo,S.,andPham,H.T.,“Estimation
of the non‐greenhouse gas emissions inventory from
shipsintheportofIncheon”,Sustainability,Issue
12(19),
8231,pp.172‐181,May2020;
[3]Rauca,L.,Batrânca,G.,“AssessmentofBusinessProcess
vsEnvironmentalimpactofShipEmissions:TheCaseof
aContainerTerminalinConstanțaPort,Romania”,40th
IBIMA International Conference, Seville, Spain, (ISBN:
979‐8‐9867719‐0‐8) and (ISSN: 2767‐9640), pp.
101‐116,
Jun.2022;
[4]Dumitrache,C.,Dumitrache,R.,Tamaș,R.,CibulaM.N.,
“TheParticularitiesoftheClosingProcessesofProjectin
theContextofSustainabilityRequirments”,Postmodern
Openings,pp.81‐88,Jan.2021;
[5]Stanca,C.,Cupșa,O.S.,StângăV.G.,“TheEvaluationof
theenvironmentalimpactandexternal
factorsofurban
transport in Constanța”, IOP Conference Series:
MaterialsScienceandEngineering,95(1),pp.63‐72,May
2015;
[6]Rondinelli, D., Berry, M., “Multimodаl Trаnsportаtion,
Logistics,аnd the Environment: Mаnаging Interаctions
inаGlobаlEconomy”,IOPConference,Issue228(1),pp.
11‐28,
Jan.2020;
[7]Ellis, J., “Assessing Safety Risks for the Sea Transport
Link of a Multimodal Dangerous Goods Transport
Chain”, Chalmers University of Technology, pp. 16‐28,
Feb.2017;
[8]*** DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/802 Of The European
ParliamentAnd OfTheCouncilof11May2016relating
to a reduction in
the sulphur content of certain liquid
fuels, (2016), ‘Official Journal of the European Union’,
ISSN1977‐0677;
[9]*** https://www.intermodal‐logistics.ro/impactul‐
razboiului‐rusia‐ucraina‐asupra‐transportului‐maritim‐
containerizat‐in‐regiunea‐marii‐negre;
[10]*** https://wellpack.org/ro/cum‐transforma‐razboiul‐
din‐ucraina‐logistica‐europeana‐si‐cum‐afecteaza‐
preturile/.
[11]Constanta Port, Annual Report
(2021), Port of
Constanta, [Online], [Retrived March, 2023],
https://www.portofconstantza.com/pn/portal/static.do?x
=get&package_id=np_statistici_port&resource=AR2021.
pdf
[12]Danish Shipping (2016), ‘Calculation tool for
assessment of shipsʹ energy consumption and fuel gas
emissions, including CO_2_ (EEDI)’, [Retrived March,
2023],
https://www.danishshipping.dk/en/policy/klimapolitik/
beregningsvaerktoejer/
[13]Zekić, A., Ivče, R., & Radonja, R. (2022). Emission
inventory of ships calling at
the port of
Dubrovnik.TransNav: International Journal on Marine
NavigationandSafetyofSeaTransportation,16.
[14]Kanaboshi,H.,Sano,F.,Oda,J.,Akimoto,K.,&Onishi,
N.(2021).Cost‐efficientmeasuresintheoilrefineryand
petrochemicalsectorsforthereductionofCO2emissions
undertheParisAgreementand
airpollutionunderthe
MARPOL Convention.Energy and Climate Change,2,
100027.