295
1 INTRODUCTION
Transportandhandlingof hazardous chemicals and
chemical products has considerably increased over
the last 20 years, thus increasing the risk of major
pollutionaccidents.Worldwide,about2000chemicals
are transported by sea either in bulk or packaged
form.Onlyfewhundredchemicalsaretransportedin
bulk but these ma
ke up most of the volume of the
chemical sea‐borne trade (Purnell 2009). Chemical
releasesarethoughttobepotentiallymorehazardous
thanoil.Astomarinespills,chemicalsmayhaveboth
acuteandlong‐term environmental effects,and may
notbeaseasilyrecoverableasoilspills.Inaddition,
public safety risks are more severe in chemical
releases(EMSA2007).
TheBalt
icSeaisoneofthebusiestsearoutesinthe
world–15%oftheworld’scargomovesinit.In2010,
the international liquid bulk transports in the Baltic
Seaportscontainedaround 290milliontonnesofoil
andoilproducts,atleast 11 milliontonnesof liquid
chemicals, and 4 million tonnes of other liquid bulk
(Holma et al. 2011; Posti & Häkkinen 2012). In
addition,chemicalsaretra
nsportedinpackagedform,
but tonnes are not studied. Navigation in the Baltic
Review of Maritime Accidents Involving Chemicals
–
Special Focus on the Baltic Sea
J
.M.Häkkinen&A.I.Posti
UniversityofTurkuCentreforMaritimeStudies,Kotka,Finland
ABSTRACT:Transportandhandlingofhazardouschemicals andchemicalproductsaroundtheworld’s waters
andportshaveconsiderablyincreasedoverthelast20years.Thus,theriskofmajorpollutionaccidentshasalso
increased.Pastincidents/accidentsare,whenreportedindetail,firsthandsourcesofinformat
iononwhatmay
happen again. This paper provides an overview of the past tanker accidents in the Baltic Sea and chemical
relatedaccidentsinseasworldwide.Theaimistofindoutwhatcanbelearnedfrompastaccidents,especially
fromtheenvironmentalpointofview.Thestudyiscarriedoutasalit
eraturereviewandasastatisticalreview.
Thestudyrevealedthattheriskofachemicalaccidentishighestinseaswherethehighesttonnesofchemicals
are transported, the density of maritime traffic is highest and, of course, in the ship‐shore interface where
unloading/
loadingtakesplace.Incidentsinvolvingchemicalspillsarestatisticallymuchlesslikelytooccurthan
oilspills.However,chemicalcargoescanbemoredangeroustohumansandpropertybecausechemicalscanbe
morecombustible,poisonous,irritatingandreactive.Themostimportantdifferencebetweenachemicalandan
oilspillmayberelatedtoresponseact
ions.Incaseofachemicalaccident,theairqualityortheriskofexplosion
should be more carefully evaluated before any response actions are taken. In case of chemical spills, the
responseismorelimitedincomparisontooil.Actually,verylittleisknownabouttheact
ualmarinepollution
effectofmost ofhighlytransportedsubstances. Fromtheenvironmentalpointofview,thepreviousstudies
havehighlightedaccidents inwhichpesticideswerereleasedtowater,butalsosubstancesconsideredasnon‐
pollutants(vegetableoils)seemtohaveanegativeeffectonbiotainthewaterenvironment.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 8
Number 2
June 2014
DOI:10.12716/1001.08.02.16
296
Sea is challenging due to the relative shallowness,
narrownavigationroutes,andicecoverofthesea.Oil
and chemicals are a serious threat to the highly
sensitive Baltic Sea ecosystems. Recently, both the
numberandthevolumeofthetransportedcargohave
increased significantly in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM
2009), concomitantly raising the spill/ship collision
riskintheBalticSeaareas(Hänninenetal.2012).The
resultsofpreviousstudies(EMSA2010,Hänninen&
Rytkönen2006,Bogalecka&Popek2008,Mullaietal.
2009, Suominen & Suhonen 2007) indicate that both
thespillrisksandchemicalincidentsarenot
aswell‐
definedthanthoseconcerningoils.Theexpectedspill
frequencyandspillvolumescausedbyship‐chemical
tankercollisionsintheGulfofFinland(GoF)collision
probabilityaremuchlessincaseofchemicaltankers
than in case of oil tankers (Sormunen et al. 2011,
Sormunenetal.2014).Nevertheless,
amongthewide
rangeofchemicalstransported,thepotencytocause
environmentaldamagecannotbeoverlooked.
At their best studies about historical chemical
accidents may offer valuable lessons about the
reasonsleadingto the accident, itsenvironmentalor
health‐related consequences or even the costs of the
accident. First studies
concerning past maritime or
port‐related HNS accidents were already made two
decades ago (Rømer et al. 1993; 1995; Cristou 1999).
More recently, many excellent papers and reports
concerning maritime accidents have been written,
concentrating mainly on the probability and
environmental consequences of accidents (e.g.
Marchand 2002; Wern 2002) Response to
harmful
substances spilled at sea (Drogou et al. 2005; EMSA
2007; Mamaca et al. 2009). Oil accidents have been
studied more than other HNS accidents, but this is
simply because of the higher incident numbers and
larger spills (Burgherr 2007). One of the most
importantissuesstudiedisthedifference
inresponse
actions in the case of oil and chemical accidents
(Marchand2002;EMSA2007;Purnell2009).
The study and analysis of past accidents with
consequencestotheenvironmentandhumanscanbe
a source of valuable information and teach us
significant lessons in order for us to prevent future
shipping
accidents and chemical incidents. The
purpose of this study is to provide a review of the
pasttankeraccidentsintheBalticSea,andchemical‐
related accidents in seas worldwide, thus aiming at
finding out what can be learned from these past
accidents, including e.g. occurrence, causes, general
rules and
particular patterns for the accidents. The
study focuses mainly on chemicals transported in
liquefied form, but chemical accidents involving
substances in packaged form are also studied.
Conventionaloilandoilproductsare observed only
on a general level. The special scope inthe study is
putonenvironmentalimpactassessment.
2
MATERIALSANDMETHODS
The study was carried out in two stages. First, a
literature review on maritime accidents involving
hazardous substances and especially chemicals was
made to find out what kind of studies have
previouslybeenconductedonthetopic,andwhatare
the main results of these studies. Both
scientific
articlesandresearchreportsweretakenintoaccount.
Thestudiesweremainlysearchedbyusingnumerous
electronicarticledatabasesandawebsearchengine.
Second, a statistical review on maritime tanker‐
relatedaccidentsinthe BalticSeawascarriedoutto
findouttheamountandtypesoftankeraccidents
that
haveoccurredintheBalticSeainrecentyears,andto
examine what kind of pollution these accidents
caused and have caused since. All types of tankers
(e.g.oiltankers,oilproducttankers,chemicaltankers,
chemical product tankers and gas tankers) were
included in the review. An overview of
the tanker
accidents in the Baltic Sea was made by using
maritime accident reports provided by the Helsinki
Commission (HELCOM) and by the European
Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). More detailed
information about maritime accidents involving a
tanker was searched using maritime accident
databases and reports provided by the authorities
and/or other
actors responsible for collecting
maritime accident data in each Baltic Sea country.
Moredetailedmaritimeaccidentinvestigationreports
on accidents were found from Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Latvia and Sweden; basic information
about accidents was found from Estonia and
Lithuania;andnomaritimeaccidentdatawasfound
fromPolandandRussia.
3 MARITIMEACCIDENTSINVOLVING
CHEMICALS
Therearefewmorerecentimpactassessmentstudies
for chemical spills in the scientific literature in
comparison to those for oil spills. Recently,there
have been some good papers and accident analyses
concerning chemicals and other hazardous materials
(conventional oil omitted), such as Cedre and
Transport
Canada 2012, EMSA 2007, HASREP 2005,
Mamacaetal. 2009, Marchand 2002 and Wern 2002.
In addition, the Centre of Documentation, Research
and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution
(Cedre) collect informationabout shipping accidents
involving HNS for an electric database by using
various data sources (Cedre 2012). None of those
aforementioned sources are, or even try to be,
exhaustive listings of all accidents involving
chemicals and other hazardous materials, but they
have gathered examples of well‐known accidents
withsomequalityinformation.Bycompilingaccident
data from aforementioned sources, 67 famous
tanker/bulk carrier accidents involving chemicals
and/or other hazardous materials were
detected.
These accidents frequently involved chemicals or
chemical groups like acids, gases, vegetable oils,
phenol, ammonia, caustic soda and acrylonitrile.
Using the same information sources, 46 accidents
involving packaged chemicals or other hazardous
materials were listed. In comparison to bulk
chemicals,itcanbeseenthatthevarietyofchemicals
involved in accidents is much higher in the case of
packagedchemicals.Inthissection,keyfindingsand
lessons to be learned from in relation to vessel
chemical accidents are discussed in more detail, the
analysisbeingbasedonoriginalkeystudies.
297
3.1 Overviewofmaritimechemicalaccidentsworldwide
One of the earliest scientific analyses of the past
maritimeaccidentswasmadebyRømeretal.(1993;
1995). Based on 151 marine accidents involving
dangerous goods, Rømer et al. (1993) calculated
accident frequencies for the different accident types
(collisions,groundings,fire/explosionsand
structural
damage). All types of accidents were rare, ranging
from 1 x 10‐3 to 2 x 10‐2. In their analysis, the
accidents involving oils were twice as frequent as
accidentsinvolvingchemicals.InRømeretal.(1995),
the consequences measured by the number of
fatalities from marine accidents
(n=1780) during the
transportof dangerous goods were investigated and
comparedwith those fromother modes of transport
(n=1001). Accidents concerning the marine transport
ofdangerous goodswerefoundtocomprisealarger
proportionofaccidentswithfatalitiesintherangeof
10–50 than other transport modes. Almost all
accidentswith
morethan40fatalitieswerecollisions
and accidents with more than 100 fatalities were
collisions between (oil)tankers and ferries.
Surprisingly, the cargo type, containment type,
geographicallocationortimeperiodhadnoeffectin
thisstudy(Rømeretal.1995).
Rømeretal.(1996)researched,onthebasisof1776
descriptions of water transport accidents involving
dangerous goods, the environmental problems
relatingtoreleasesofthiskind. Itwasfoundthatthe
most detailed descriptions of environmental
consequencesconcernedoil accidents,althoughmost
of the consequences were described as reversible
changes. It was shown that crude oil releases, on
average,are
approximatelyfivetimeslargerthanthe
releasesofoilproducts,andthatoilproductreleases
are approximately five times larger than those of
other chemicals. Only 2% of the 1776 accidents
described in the study contained information on
consequences to living organisms, and only 10%
contained any information on consequences
to
ecosystems. A relationship between the minimum
kilometres of shore polluted and the tonnes oil
released was found in oil accidents. Oil slicks were
shown to be five times their breadth in length.
Gravity scales used to describe and evaluate
environmental consequences were discussed in the
studyaswell.
Gunster et
al. (1993) studied petroleum and other
hazardouschemicalspillsinNewarkBay,USA,from
1982 to 1991. A record obtained from the United
StatesCoastGuard(USCG)included1453accidental
incidentsthathadresultedinthereleaseofmorethan
18 million US gallons of hazardous materials and
petroleum products
in the Newark Bay area. Most
accidents had occurred with fuel oils and gasoline.
The authors reviewed many environmental studies
andconcluded that with regards to the amountand
frequency of these spills, the elimination of entire
species and a reduction in biotic diversity have
typicallybeenobservedamongbenthiccommunities
aftermajorreleases.Manycompoundsarealsolong‐
livedintheenvironmentandtherebyposeachronic
threattoaquaticorganismslongaftertheacuteinitial
effectsofthespillhaveabated(Gunsteretal.1993).
Marchand(2002)presentedananalysisofchemical
incidents and accidents in the EU waters
and
elsewhere, and stated that 23 incidents had
information written down on related facts, such as
accident places and causes, chemical products
involved, response actions and environmental
impacts.Thestudycategorizedtheaccidentsintofive
groups according to how the substance involved
behaved after being spilled at sea: products as
packaged
form; dissolvers in bulk; floaters in bulk;
sinkers in bulk; and gases and evaporators in bulk.
Based on Marchand’s (2002) analysis, most of the
accidentshappenedinthetransi tphaseatsea,thatis,
while the vessel was moving. Only four accidents
happened in ports or in nearby zones. Most
of the
accidentshappenedwithbulkcarriers(62percentof
all the incidents), and less often with vessels
transportingchemicalsinpackagedform(38%).Bad
weather conditions and the resulting consequences
werethemaincauseoftheaccidents(in62percentof
all the cases). Marchand (2002) highlighted
several
issues concerning human health risks in the case of
maritimechemicalaccidents.Healsopointedoutthat
in most accident cases the risks affecting human
health come usually from reactive substances
(reactivitywithair,water orotherproducts)andtoxic
substances. The evaluation of the chemical risks can
be
verydifficultifashipiscarryingdiversechemicals
andsomeofthoseareunknownduring thefirsthours
aftertheaccident.Amorerecentstudy,Manacaetal.
(2009)weightedthesame chemicalrisksasMarchand
(2002). Certain substances such as chlorine,
epichlorohydrine, acrylonitrile, styrene, acids and
vinyl acetate are
transported in large quantities and
mayposeaveryseriousthreattohumanhealthbeing
highlyreactive,flammableandtoxic.BothMarchand
(2002) and Mamaca et al. (2009) pointed out that
consequences and hazards to the environment have
varied a lot, considering chemical tanker accidents.
Bothstudiesstatedthat,in
lightofaccidents,pesticide
productsareoneofthebiggestthreatsforthemarine
environment. If pesticides enter the marine
environment, consequences for the near‐shore biota,
and simultaneously for the people dependent on
these resources could be severe. On the other hand,
evensubstancesconsideredasnon‐pollutants,suchas
vegetable oils (in accidents like Lindenbank, Hawaii
1975;Kimya,UK1991;Allegra,France1997),canalso
have serious effects for marine species like birds,
musselsandmammals(Cedre2012,Marchand2002).
Bysurveying47ofthebest‐documentedmaritime
transportaccidentsinvolving chemicalsintheworld
from as early as
1947 to 2008, Mamaca et al. (2009)
gathered a clear overview of lessons to be learned.
Eventhoughthedatawastoonarrowforittobeused
inmakinganystatisticalfindings,thestudy presented
somegoodexamplesofmaritimechemicalaccidents.
32ofthoseaccidentsoccurredinEurope.The
listof
chemicals that were involved in the accidents more
than one time included sulphuric acid (3),
acrylonitrile (3), ammonium nitrate (2), and styrene
(2).Only10ofthe47accidentsoccurredinportsorin
nearbyzones.Moreover,66percentoftheaccidents
involved chemicals transported in bulk,
whereas 34
per cent involved hazardous materials in packaged
form.Primarycausesforthereviewedaccidents were
also studied. Improper maneuver was most
frequentlythereasonfortheaccident(in22percent
ofallthecases),shipwreckcamesecond(20%),and
298
collision was third (13 %), closely followed by
groundingandfire(11%each).
Based on past accident analysis considering
packagedchemicals,Mamacaetal.(2009)pointedout
that,inlightofpackagedgoods,asaconsequenceof
high chemical diversity present on the vessel,
responders must know environmental fates
for
different chemicals individually as well as the
possible synergistic reactions between them. Even
though smaller volumes are transported, packaged
chemicals can also be extremely dangerous to
humans. This could be seen when fumes of
epichlorohydrine leaking from the damaged drums
ontheOostzee(Germany1989)seriouslyaffectedthe
ship´s
crewandcausedseveralcancercasesthatwere
diagnosedyearsafter(Mamacaetal.2009).However,
thesetypesofaccidentsinvolvingpackagedchemicals
have only a localized short‐term impact on marine
life. As to accidents caused by fire, there are
difficultiesinrespondingtothesituationifthevessel
is
transportinga widevarietyoftoxicproducts.Itis
importantyetdifficulttohaveafullydetailedlistof
the transported products for the use of assessing
possible dangers for rescue personnel and public.
Based on the analyses of the reviewed accidents,
Mamacaetal.(2009)showedthatthehighest
riskfor
humanhealth comesmainlyfromreactivesubstances
(reactivity with air, water or other products). They
also noted that many chemicals are not only
carcinogenic and marine pollutants, but can form a
moderatelytoxicgascloudwhichisoftencapableof
producing a flammable and/or explosive mix in the
air.
Acrylonitrileis a toxic, fla mmableandexplosive
chemical, and if it is exposed to heat, a highly toxic
gasfor humans (phosgene) is formed. Vinyl acetate,
in turn, is a flammable and polymerizable product
that in the case of Multi Tank Ascania incident (in
United Kingdom, in 1999) caused a
huge explosion.
Little is known about the actual marine pollution
effects of most of these substances. If hazardous
chemicalsandoilarecompared,itcanbesaidthatthe
dangerof coastlinepollutionisafargreaterconcern
foroilspillsthanitisforchemicalspills.Ontheother
hand,
thetoxiccloudsareamuchbiggerconcernin
thecaseofchemicalaccidents(Mamacaetal.2009).
IntheirHNSActionPlan,EMSA(2007)reviewed
pastincidentsinvolvingaHNSorachemical.About
100HNSincidentswereidentifiedfrom1986to2006.
These incidents included both those that
resulted in
spillandthosethatdidnot.EMSA(2007)statedthat
cautionshouldbeappliedtothedataconcerningthe
total sum of the incidents as well as the amount of
spills,because thereisvariabilityinthereportsfrom
different countries. Statistics showed that the
principle cause for both
release and non‐release
incidentswerefounderingandweather(in22percent
ofalltheincidents),followedbyfireandexplosionin
cargo areas (20 %), collision (16 %) and grounding
(15%). Majority of the accidents involved single
cargoes (73 %), in which most of the material was
carried
in bulk form (63 %). Moreover, 50 % of all
studied incidents resulted in an HSN release. As to
these release accidents/incidents, most of them
happened in the Mediterranean Sea (40 %); some in
the North Sea (22 %) and Channel Areas (20 %),
whereas only 8 per cent occurred in
the Baltic Sea.
Thefounderingandweatherwasagaintheprinciple
causeofthesereleaseincidentsin 34 per centofthe
cases, followed by fire and explosion in cargo areas
(18 %), collision (14 %), and grounding (10 %). The
majority of the incidents resulting in HNS release
involved
single cargoes (78 %) of which 61 per cent
wasinbulkform(EMSA2007).
HASREP project listed major maritime chemical
spills(above70tonnes)intheEUwatersfrom1994‐
2004 (HASREP 2005). The project found 18 major
accidents altogether, and most of them happened in
France or Netherlands. Interestingly,
8 accidents
listed in HASREP (2005) were not mentioned in the
studyofMamacaetal.(2009).Theaverageoccurrence
of a major maritime chemical accident in the
European Union was nearly 2 incidents per year
(HASREP2005). By comparison, the statistical study
madebytheU.S.CoastGuard(USCG)
intheUnited
Statesover5year‐span(1992–1995)listed423spillsof
hazardoussubstancesfromshipsorportinstallations,
givinganaverageof85spillseachyear.The9most
frequentlyspilledproductsweresulfuricacid(86spill
cases), toluene (42), caustic soda (35), benzene (23),
styrene (20), acrylonitrile (18),
xylenes (18), vinyl
acetate(17)andphosphoricacid(12).Overhalfofthe
spillswerefromships(mainlycarrierbarges),andthe
rest from facilities (where the spill comes from the
facility itself or from a ship in dock). A
complementarystudymadeoveraperiodof13years
(1981–1994)
on the 10 most important port zones
reported 288 spills of hazardous substances,
representing on average, 22 incidents each year (US
Coast Guard 1999). Small spillages in Europe were
not recorded with a similar care because they were
not detected and/or there was a lack of
communicationbetweenenvironmentalorganizations
and
competentauthorities(HASREP2005).
Cedre and Transport Canada (2012) analyzed a
totalof196accidentsthatoccurredacrosstheworld´s
seasbetween1917and2010.Thesubstancesthatwere
most frequently spilled and that had the greatest
quantitiesweresulphuricacid,vegetableoils,sodium
hydroxidesolutionsandnaphtha.Quitesurprisingly,
thestudyshowedthatstructuraldamage(18%)was
the main cause of accidents involving hazardous
materials,followedbysevereweatherconditions(16
%), collision (13 %), and grounding (11 %).
Loading/unloadingwasthecauseforonly7percent
oftheaccidents(CedreandTransportCanada2012).
3.2 Animaland
vegetableoils
Eventhoughvegetableoiltransportvolumeremains
200 times smaller than the volume of mineral oil
transport, it has increased dramatically (Bucas &
Saliot 2002). Thus, the threat of a vegetable oil spill
duetoashipaccidentoraccidentalspillispresently
increasing. Even though vegetable oils
are regarded
as non‐toxic consumable products, they may be
hazardous to marine life when spilled in large
quantities into the marine environment. Bucas &
Saliot (2002) observed that there are 15 significant
cases of pollution by vegetable or animal oils that
have been reported during the past 40 years
worldwide.
Rapeseedoilwas involved in five cases,
soybeanoilandpalmoilinthreecaseseach,coconut
oil,fishoil andanchovyoilinonecaseeach, andin
299
two cases the product was unknown. The largest
amountofvegetableoilwasspilledinHawaiiin1975
when M.V. Lindenbank released 9500 tonnes of
vegetable oils to coral reef killing crustaceans,
mollusks and fishes. It also impacted green algae to
grow excessively as well as caused tens of birds
to
die.Similarly,thefishoilaccidenthadalsoaserious
effect on marine environment, killing lobsters, sea
urchins,fishesandbirds(Bucas&Saliot2002).
Based on past cases, Bucas & Saliot (2002)
described the environmental fate of vegetable oil
spills. The specific gravity of vegetable oils is
comprised
between0.9and0.97at20ºCelsius.After
spilledintothesea,theseoilsremainatthesurfaceof
theseaandspreadformingslicks.Thefurtherfateof
theseoilsdependsonthenatureoftheoil,theamount
spilled,theairandseatemperaturesetc.Inopenseas
or
inports,theconsequencesareoftenseverebecause
of local and tidal current movements. The slick can
easily spread over several square kilometers. Few
hours or days after a spill, the slick is usually no
longerregular.Apartoftheoilmaybemingledwith
sand,someofit
mayhavepolymerizedandsunk, and
intheopensea,mechanicaldispersionoftheoilslick
makes it more available to bacterial degradation.
Overallbiologicaldegradationcanbeachievedwithin
14 days, whereas it takes 25 days for a petroleum
product to degrade. If the accident happens in a
shallowbay,
thisbacterial degradationmayresultin
lack of oxygen in the water column (Bucas & Saliot
2002).
Bird loss is usually a major consequence of
vegetable oil spills. Slicks are often colorless with a
slightodor,andthustheyarenot easilydetectedby
birds. Several mechanisms lead birds to
death after
oiling:Forexample,thelossofinsulatingcapacityof
wettedfeathersmakesbirdsdiefromcold;thelossof
mobility makes them as easy catch; the loss of
buoyancyduetocoatedfeathersresultsindrowning;
thelaxativepropertiesoftheoilingestedduringself‐
cleaning cause lesions; and
the clog of nostrils and
throatcanresulttosuffocation.Astocrustaceans,the
invertebrates have died, for instance, from
asphyxiation of clogging of the digestive track.
Anoxia of the whole water column may also be the
causeofthesedeaths, andthereisalsoevidencethat
e.g. sunflower oil
can be assimilated on tissues of
mussels,asithashappenedinthecaseoftheKimya
accident (Bucas & Saliot 2002, Cedre 2012). Bucas &
Saliot (2002) stated that it is necessary to quickly
collect the oil after spillage by using usual methods
likeboomsandpumps.
3.3 Riskassessment
ofdifferentchemicals
Risk posed by maritime chemical spill depends also
on accident scenario and environmental conditions
besides inner properties of the spilled chemical.
Basically,accidentsinvolvingchemicaltankerscanbe
classifiedintofourgroups.Offshore,intheopensea
area,chemicalspillhasspacetohavealargereffect
or
to dissolve and be vaporized. This mitigates the
negative effects of the spill. On the other hand,
response actions can take a longer time and
environmentalconditionscanbechallenging,aswell.
The incident occurring closer to shoreline can be
easier or faster to reach, even if the impact to
the
environmentcanpotentiallybemoredisastrous.The
third scenario portrays a casualty that happens in a
closedseaarea,likeinaportorinaterminalarea.In
these cases, the spill is usually localized and
effectively restricted. However, even smaller spill
may elevate toxicitylevelsina
restricted area. Ports
are also situated near city centers, and there is an
elevatedriskforthehealthofthepublicandworkers
in the area. The fourth possibility is an accident
during winter in the presence of ice and snow
(Hänninen & Rytkönen 2006). The properties of the
chemicalsmay
changeincoldwater.Somechemicals
maybemoreviscousorevenbecomesolids,andthus,
easier to recover. On the other hand, hazardous
impactsofsome chemicalsmay multiplyinthecold
environment because the decomposition of the
chemicalsbecomesslower.Thus,chemicalsmaydrift
to larger areas. They
may also accumulate to the
adipose tissues in animals which decreases the
probability of an animal to survive beyond winter
(Riihimäkietal.2005).
The marine pollution hazards caused by
thousands of chemicals have been evaluated by, for
example, the Evaluation of Hazardous Substances
Working Group which has given GESAMP Hazard
Profileasaresult.Itindexesthesubstancesaccording
to their bio‐accumulation; bio‐degradation; acute
toxicity;chronictoxicity;long‐termhealtheffects;and
effects on marine wildlife and on benthic habitats.
Based on the GESAMP evaluation, the IMO has
formed 4 different hazard categories: X (major
hazard),Y(hazard)
andZ(minorhazard)andOSi.e.
othersubstances(nohazard)(IMO2007).Over80per
cent of all chemicals transported in maritime are
classified as belonging to the Y category (GESAMP
2002;IMO2007).ThisGESAMPcategorizationisvery
comprehensive, but different chemicals having very
differenttoxicitymechanisms,environmentalfate
and
other physico‐chemical properties may end up to
same MARPOL category. The GESAMP hazard
profile, although being an excellent first‐hand guide
in a case of a marine accident, will not answer the
questionofwhichchemicalsbelongingtothesameY
category are the most dangerous ones from
an
environmentalperspective.
Many risk assessment and potential worst case
studiesexistto help find out whatimpacts different
chemicals might have if instantaneous spill were to
happen (Kirby & Law 2010). For example, Law &
Campell(1998)madeaworstcasescenarioofcirca10
tonnes insecticide spill (pirimiphos‐ethyl),
and
concludedthatitmightseriouslydamagecrustacean
fisheriesinanareaof10,000km
2
witha recoverytime
of5years.Inthecaseofmarineaccidents,thegreatest
risktotheenvironmentisposedbychemicalswhich
have high solubility, stay in the water column, and
are bioavailable, persistent and toxic to organisms.
Basedontheanalysisofchemicalstransportedinthe
Baltic
Sea, Häkkinen et al. (2012) stated that
nonylphenolisthemosttoxicofthestudiedchemicals
anditisalsothemosthazardousinlightofmaritime
spills. The chemical is persistent, accumulative and
hasarelativelyhighsolubilitytowater.Nonylphenol
is actually transported in the form of nonylphenol
ethoxylates
but it is present as nonylphenol when
spilledtotheenvironment,andintheaforementioned
300
study the worst case scenario was evaluated. Other
very hazardous substances were sulphuric acid and
ammonia (Häkkinen et al. 2012). Similarly, the
HASREP (2005) project identified top 100 chemicals
whicharetransportedbetweenmajorEuropeanports
andinvolvedintradethroughtheEnglishChannelto
therestoftheWorld.
Theassessmentwasbasedboth
on tra nsport volumes and the GESAMP hazard
profile. The project highlighted chemicals such as
benzene, styrene, vegetable oil, xylene, methanol,
sulphuric acid, phenol, vinyl acetate, and
acrylonitrile. It was concluded that these chemicals
weretheonesthathavehighspillageprobabilitybut
may not result
in significant environmental impact.
Similarly, French McKay et al. (2006) applied a
predictivemodelingapproachforaselectedrangeof
chemicals that are transported by sea in bulk and
concludedthatphenolandformaldehydepresentthe
greatest risks to aquatic biota. Harold et al. (2011)
evaluated human health risks of transported
chemicals,basedontheGESAMPratingsfortoxicity
and irritancy. This gives more weight to chemicals
thatarefloaters;formgasclouds;orareirritableand
toxiclikechlorine(Haroldetal.2011).Itisclearthat
different weightings have a certain impact on the
difference in results in these
studies. However, the
chemicalsofrealconcernvarydependingonthesea
areaforwhichtheriskassessmentisconductedsince
theamountsandtypesofchemicalsdifferindifferent
seaareasasdomarineenvironmentandbiota(Kirby
&Law2010).
Theimpactsof areleaseoraspill depend
onthe
behaviorofthechemical orchemicalsinquestion. It
canbeconcludedthatthemostharmfulchemicalsfor
humanhealthhavequiteoppositepropertiestothose
thatare most hazardous for water biota. Forhuman
health, the most hazardous chemicals are those that
arevery reactive, formeither
very toxic or irritating
(orexplosive)gasclouds,andalsohavepossiblelong‐
term effects, such as carcinogenic effects. From the
environmental point of view, the most hazardous
chemicalsare thosethatsink,havea highsolubility,
possibly stay at the water column, are persistent,
bioavailable and very toxic and can
have possible
long‐termeffects(FrenchMcKayetal.2006,Häkkinen
etal.2012,Haroldetal.2011).
3.4 Responseactionsincaseofmaritimechemicalspills
There are many excellent reviews (e.g. Marchand
2002, EMSA 2007, Purnell 2009), based on lessons
learnedfrompastaccidents,whichalsocontaindata
aboutresponseactionsincaseofchemicalspills.Even
ifresponseactionstakendifferineveryaccidentcase
according to special conditions and chemicals
involved, it is nevertheless possible to demonstrate
certain significant or specific elements valid in all
chemicalincidentsatsea(Marchand2002).
Firstly, like the information concerning the
ship
cargo, an evaluation of chemical risks is of primary
importancebeforeanyoperationaldecisionsaretobe
made,especiallyiftheshipiscarryingawidevariety
ofchemicals(Marchand2002).Followingthechemical
spill at sea, the response authorities must
immediatelytakemeasuresinorder tominimizethe
chemical exposure to the public as well as
contamination of the marine environment. The
primary factors which determine the severity and
extentoftheimpactoftheaccidentarerelatedtothe
chemicalandphysicalpropertiesofthechemicalsin
question. It should be noted that in the case of oil
spills, the hazard to human health is generally
consideredtobelow,andthemoretoxicandlighter
fractionsoftenevaporatebefore responseactions are
able to be started. However, in case of chemical
accidents, an initial assessment and monitoring of
potentialhazardsshouldbeundertakenfirstinorder
to
ensureasafe workingenvironment.Inthatstage,
theprimaryhazardsandfateofthechemicalinthat
marine environment are evaluated. The monitoring
techniques need to be designed to measure the key
parametersthatcouldgiverisetoahazard.Itshould
alsobenotedthatinsomecasesdoing
nothingmight
be the best option, as long it happens under
observation(Marchand 2002,Purnell2009).LeFloch
et al. (2010) stated that in case of an instantaneous
chemical spill, response usually follows three
accepted scenarios: 1) response is not possible,
because the spill occurred in a geographical
environment that
is incompatible with reasonable
response times, 2) response is not possible due to
reactivityofthesubstances(major,imminentdanger),
and 3) response is possible. Gases and evaporators,
very reactive substances, and explosives are the
biggestconcernforhumanhealthandsafety.Several
monitoring devices and dispersion models exist
which may
aid decision making and help protect
responders and the public. The floaters can be
monitoredbyusingthesametechniquesthatareused
for oil spills. Chemicals that prove to be the most
difficult to be monitored are sinkers and dissolvers
(suchasacrylonitrileinthecaseofAlessandroPrimo
in Italy in 1991), even if some techniques e.g.
electrochemical methods and acoustic techniques
exist(EMSA2007,Purnell2009).
Several international, regional and national
authorities have published operational guides to
describe the possible response options in case of a
chemical spill. For example Cedre and IMO have
mademanualsprovidinginformation
aboutdifferent
response techniques that can be used in case of
chemical spills (Cedre 2012, HELCOM 2002, IMO
2007). Usually response techniques depend on the
behavior of a chemical in the environment, and on
whether it is released or still contained in pa ckaged
form. In pra ctice, the response action varies
substantially.Techniquesthatareapplicableincaseof
oil accidents may be suitable for only some floating
chemicals. However, it should not be forgotten that
some floating chemicals can also potentially create
toxic and maybeexplosive vapor clouds (e.g. diesel,
xyleneandstyrene).Ifthishappens,thespark/static‐
free equipment should
be used. Moreover, foams or
sorbent materials can also be used near the spill
source. Risks associated with evaporators or gases,
such as ammonia and vinyl chloride, could be
diminished by diluting or using release methods
(Purnell 2009). In shallow water areas, neutralizers,
activated carbon, oxidizing or reducing agents,
complexing
agents, and ion‐exchangers canbe used.
Chemicals that are heavier than seawater, in turn,
maycontaminatelargeareasoftheseabed.Recovery
methodsthatareusedincludemechanical,hydraulic
orpneumaticdredges,buttherecoveryworkistime‐
301
consuming and expensive and results in large
quantities of contaminated material. Other option is
capping the contaminated sediment in‐situ (Purnell
2009).
As Marchand (2002) listed, the time involved in
responseoperationscanvaryfrom2–3months(Anna
Broere, Holland; Cason, Spain; Alessandro Primo,
Italy); to 8 months (Fenes, France); to 10 months
(Baham
as, Brazil); or to even several years as in the
case of the research carried out on a sunken cargo
(Sinbad, Holland). Cold weather and ice cover may
create further problems to response actions in the
Baltic Sea in the winter. The viscosity of chemicals
maychangeincold,andtheycanbemorepersistent.
Collect
ing techniques based on fluid‐like masses are
nolongereffective,iffluidschangeandactmorelike
solid masses. Moreover, it is difficult for a recovery
fleettooperate,ifitissurroundedbyiceandsnow.If
chemicalshavespreadundertheicecover,detecting
the spill is more difficult
, and the use of dispersing
agents is ineffective. However, ice breakers may be
used to break the ice cover and to improve mixing
chemicals with larger water masses (Hänninen &
Rytkönen2006).
4 STATISTICALREVIEWONTANKER
ACCIDENTSINTHEBALTICSEA
4.1 AccidentstatisticsbyHELCOMandEMSA
The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) has reported
tha
t during the years 1989–2010 approximately 1400
shipaccidentshappenedintheBalticSea.Mostofthe
accidents were groundings and collisions, followed
bypollutions,fires,machinerydamagesandtechnical
failures (Fig. 1). One in ten of the accidents are
definedasothertypesofaccidents(HELCOM2012).
Groundings44%
Collisions28%
Pollution7%
Fire6%
Machinerydamage
3%
Technicalfailure2%
Otheraccident10%
Figure1.VesselaccidentsintheBalticSeain1989–2010by
accidenttypes.(HELCOM2012)
According to HELCOM (2012), 1520 vessels in
totalhavebeeninvolvedintheaccidentsoccurredin
theBalticSeaduringtheyears1989–2010.Almosthalf
of the vessels were different types of cargo vessels
excluding tankers (Fig. 2). Large number of other
vessel types (e.g. pilot vessels, tugs, dredgers) was
also involved in the accidents. One in seven of the
accidentsinvolvedata
nkerandapassengervessel.
Cargovessels(excl.
tankers)47%
Tankers 14%
Passengervessels
14%
Othertypesof
vessel24%
Noinformation1%
Figure2.VesselaccidentsintheBalticSeain1989–2010by
vesseltypes.(HELCOM2012)
Tanker
accidents
withno
pollution86,7
%
Oil/oil
product
pollution
cases12,8%
Chemical
pollution
cases0,5%
Total numberoftankeraccidents:211
Amount ofpollutionintotal:appr.3100m3
Figure3.Tankeraccidentsandtheshareofpollutioncases
intheBalticSeain1989–2010.(HELCOM2012)
Based on the HELCOM’s accident statistics, 210
tankers(includingcrudeoiltankers,chemicaltankers,
oil/chemical product tankers, gas carriers and other
types of vessels carrying liquid bulk cargoes) were
involved in the accidents that occurred in the Baltic
Sea during the years 1989–2010. During this period,
28ofalltankeraccidentsintheBalt
icSealedtosome
sort of pollution. Due to these 28 pollution cases,
approximately3100m
3
ofharmfulsubstancesintotal
spilledinthesea.Inalmostallofthepollutioncases,
spilled substance was conventional oil or an oil
product(e.g.crudeoil,gasolineoil,fuel oil,dieseloil)
(Fig. 3). In one pollution case only, the spilled
substance was a chemical (a leakage of 0.5 m
3
of
orthoxyleneinGothenburg on 13 February 1996).13
outofthe 28 tanker pollution cases intheBalticSea
thatwerereportedbyHELCOMhavebeenclassified
asspills/pollutions;5wereclassifiedascollisions;3as
groundings; 2 as technical failures; 1 as machinery
damage;1ascontactwithbollard;1ashulldamage;1
as loading accident; and 1 as an accident caused by
broken hose. Over one‐thi
rd (11) of all these tanker
pollutionaccidentshappenedontheSwedishcoast;4
accidents happened in Lithuania; 3 accidents in
Latvia;2accidentsinEstonia;2accidentsinRussia;1
accidentinFinland;1accidentinPoland;0accidents
302
in Germany; and 4 accidents in other areas of the
Baltic Sea. The largest pollution case involving a
tanker in the Baltic Sea during the period of 1989–
2010 happened in the Danish waters on 29 March
2001whenapproximately2500m
3
ofoil spilled into
theseaasaresultofacollisionbetweenatankerand
abulkcarrier(HELCOM2012).
BasedontheEMSA’sMaritimeAccidentReviews
(EMSA2007,2008,2009,2010),theannualnumberof
accidentsintheBalticSeahasvariedbetween75and
120accidentsover
theperiodof2007–2010.Ineachof
theseyearsapproximately15percentofallmaritime
accidents in the EU happened in the Baltic Sea.
During the reviewed period, the main causes of the
accidentshavebeengroundings(32–52percentofall
accidents),followedby collisions/contacts (23–35 %),
firesand
explosions(10–17%)andsinkings(2–5%).
In every year, the largest proportion of accidents
happened in the south‐western approaches off the
DanishandSwedishcoasts,withtheseaccountingfor
around 70–77 per cent of the regional total.
Groundings off the Danish and Swedish coasts
accountedforaround80–88
percentofthetotalBaltic
Searegiongroundingsintheyears2007–2010.Mostof
the accidents in the region happened in the heavily
trafficked approaches around eastern Denmark,
which can be more difficult to navigate than many
other areas. The recorded figures show that the
FinnishandEstoniancoastlinesaccounted
foraround
15–17 per cent of the total number of accidents
happened in the Baltic Sea in this 4 year period.
AccidentsrecordedbyEMSAintheyears2007–2010
include 4 significant pollution events in total. As a
consequence of these pollution events, at least 695
tonnes of oil/oil products
spilled into the Baltic Sea
(the size of pollution in one accident was not
available). No significant chemical accidents
happened in the Baltic Sea during the reviewed
period. In addition to these significant pollution
events,some smaller accidental spillswere recorded
byEMSAintheyears2007–2010.Forexample,in2007
EMSA’s daily research recorded about 30 accidental
oilspillsof different sizes in andaround EU waters
(EMSA2007).
HELCOMandEMSAmainlyprovidecoarse‐level
informationabouteachmaritimeaccident.Therefore,
more detailed information on maritime accidents
involving a tanker was searched using maritime
accident databases and reports provided
by the
authorities and/or other actors who are responsible
for collecting maritime accident data in each Baltic
Sea country. More detailed maritime accident
investigation reports were found about Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Latvia and Sweden, and basic
informationaboutaccidentswasfoundaboutEstonia
andLithuania.Therewasnomaritimeaccidentdata
foundaboutPolandorRussia.
4.2 Nationalaccidentstatistics
AccordingtotheDanishMaritimeAuthority’s(DMA)
annual marine accident publications (Danish
Maritime Authority 2009), the total of 42 accidents
involving a tanker registered under the Danish or
Greenlandicflaghappenedduringtheperiodof1999–
2008.Whenexaminingforeignvessels,it
canbeseen
that 63 foreign tankers in totalwere involved in the
accidents that happened in Denmark’s territorial
waters in the reviewed period. 51 of these foreign
tankers are classified as oil tankers, 9 as chemical
tankers, and 3 as gas tankers. In addition to the
DMA’s annual marine
accident publications, Danish
Maritime Authority and the Danish Maritime
Accident Investigation Board (DMAIB) have
published, on their Internet sites, 142 maritime
accident investigation reports or investigation
summaryreportsonmerchantshipsduringtheyears
1999–2011 (Danish Maritime Authority 2012, Danish
Maritime Accident Investigation Board 2012). Study
of these investigation reports revealed
that 21
accidentsinvolvingatankerintotalwereinvestigated
bytheDMAandtheDMAIB.9oftheseaccidentscan
beclassifiedaspersonalaccidents,6ascollisions,4as
groundings, 1 as an explosion, and 1 as an oil spill.
Overhalf(11)oftheaccidentsoccurredin
theBaltic
Sea,1 accident inthe North Sea, and the rest of the
accidentsinotherseaareasaroundtheworld.Only2
oftheinvestigatedaccidentsledtopollution:1)2700
tonnesoffueloilspilledintheseaasaconsequenceof
acollisionbetweentwovesselsin
FlensburgFjordin
2001and2)400–500litresofheavyfueloilspilledinto
theseaduringbunkeringnearSkagenin2008.
Accident investigation reports provided by the
FinnishSafetyInvestigationAuthorityshowsthat10
tanker‐related accidents in total happened to vessels
in Finland’s waters and to those that
were sailing
underFinnishflagduringtheperiod of1997–2011.4
of these accidents were groundings, 3 collisions, 2
spillsand1personalinjury.Twooftheaccidentsled
to spill: 1) on 20thJuly 2000 in the Port of Hamina,
about2tonnesofnonylphenolethoxylateleakedon
the
quayareaandintoseaduringloading,and2)on
27thFebruary2002intheportofSjöldvik,about2m
3
offlammablepetrolleakedintoseaduringunloading
(FinnishSafetyInvestigationAuthority2012).
The study of the marine casualty statistics (BSU
2012a) and maritime casualty investigation reports
(BSU 2012b) provided by the Federal Bureau of
Maritime Casualty Investigation (BSU) revealed that
during 2002–2011 the BSU recorded 27 marine
casualties involving
a tanker that happened in
Germany’s territorial waters or to vessels sailing
under the German flag. 16 of these casualties were
collisions,7personalaccidents,2groundings,1water
contamination,and1 carbon monoxide exposure. 17
chemical tankers, 10 tankers, 1 river tanker and 1
motortankerintotalwereinvolved
intheaccidents.
Most of the accidents occurred in the Kiel Canal, in
the Elbe River, in the Port of Hamburg, or outside
Germany’s waters. Only one of the accidents
happened in the Baltic Sea, north of Fünen.
Information about possible pollution as a
consequence of an accident was not
available in all
cases.However,atleast18of27accidentsinvolvinga
tanker did not cause pollution and only 1 of the
accidentswasreportedtohaveledtopollution(appr.
960tonnesofsulphuricacidinthePortofHamburg
on6June2004).
Accordingtothemaritimeaccident
statisticsofthe
Latvian Maritime Administration, the total of 30
accidentsinvolvingaliquidbulkvesselhappenedin
Latvia’s territorial waters or to vessels sailing under
theLatvianflagduringtheperiodof1993–2010.17of
303
these accidents were classified as collisions, 3 as
groundings, 3 as personal injuries, 2 as
fires/explosions,2 aspollutions,and3asothertypes
of accidents. Unfortunately, the Latvian Maritime
Administration’s accident statistics do not provide
information on whether the accidents caused
pollution or not (Latvian Maritime Administration
2012).
TheSwedishTransportAgency’sannualma
ritime
accident/incidentreports(SwedishTransportAgency
2012a)revealedthat the total of 90 accidents and 14
incidentsinvolvingatankeroccurredintheSwedish
territorial waters during the period of 2002–2010.
Machine damages (24 per cent of all the tanker
accidents), groundings (22 %), collisions with other
object tha
n a vessel (19 %), and collisions between
vessels (17 %) have been the most common reasons
fortankeraccidents.Approximately51percentofthe
tankersinvolvedintheaccidentswerevesselssailing
undertheSwedishflagand49percentwereforeign
vessels. There was some lack of informat
ion, but it
couldbedeterminedthatatleast4oftheseaccidents
led to pollution (Swedish Transport Agency 2012a,
2012b):1)500litresoffueloilspilledfromafueltank
duringbunkeringinGothenburgin2005;2)100litres
of gas oil spilled into the sea as a consequence of a
collisionbetweentwovesselsinGothenburgin1998;
3) a
pproximately45m
3
ofgasoilspilledfromafuel
tank due to vessel grounding in Brofjorden in 1999;
and4)a pproximately600tonnesofhydrochloricacid
were released into the sea under the control of the
Swedish Maritime Administration near Öresund in
2000 as a consequence of a collision between two
vessels.
According to the Estonian Maritime
Administration, the tota
l of 16 accidents involving a
tanker happened to vessels in Estonia’s territorial
waters, or to vessels which have been sailing under
Estonia’s flag during the period of 2002–2011. 7 of
these accidents were groundings, 3 fires, 4 contacts
with a quay, and 2 collisions. None of the accidents
have caused pollut
ion (Estonian Maritime
Administration2012).
Accordingtothemaritimeaccidentstatisticsofthe
Lithuanian Maritime Safety Administration, 12
accidentsinvolvingaliquidbulkvesselhappenedin
Lithuania’s territorial waters or to vessels sailing
undertheLithuanianflagduringtheperiodof2001–
2010.4oftheseaccidentscanbeclassifiedasspills,3
ascollisions,2ascontactswithaquay/
othervessel,1
as fire, and 2 as other types of accidents. As a
consequence of the 4 spill types in the accidents, at
least 3.5 tonnes of oil and 0.06 tonnes of diesel fuel
leaked int
o the sea in the Lithuanian waters. The
amountofoilspilledinthewaterisprobablyhigher
since regarding the 2 oil spill cases, there was no
information available about the level of pollution
(LithuanianMaritimeSafetyAdministration2012).
5 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS
This paper provided an overview of the pa
st tanker
accidentsintheBalticSeaandHNSaccidentsinseas
worldwide.Italsoaimedatfindingoutwhatcanbe
learned from past accidents, especially from the
environmentalpointofview.
The results of this study showed that chemical
tanker accidents are very rare, even though there is
alwaysthepossibilit
ythatsuchincidentmayhappen.
Many other studies have shown that the most
commonly transported chemicals are the ones most
likely to be involved in an accident. Moreover, the
risksaredifferentandvaryindifferentseaareas.The
riskofanaccidentisthehighestinwaterareaswhere
thelargestam
ountsofchemicalsaretransported,the
densityof themaritimetrafficisatitshighest point,
where bad weather conditions exists, as well as the
ship‐shoreinterfaceinportswhereunloading/loading
take place. Incidents involving chemical spills are
statisticallymuchlesslikelytooccurtha
noilspills.
Actually, very little is known about the actual
marinepollutioneffectofmostofhighlytransported
substances. From the environmental point of view,
the previous studies have highlighted accidents in
which pesticides were released to water, but also
substances considered as non‐pollutants (vegetable
oils) seem to have a negative effect on biota in the
water environment. When comparing hazardous
chemicals with oil, it can be said tha
t the danger of
coastlinepollutionisafargreaterconcerninoilspills
thaninchemicalspills.Itisverydifficulttoevaluate
chemicalrisksifashipiscarryingdiversechemicals
and some of those substances are unknown during
thefirsthoursaft
ertheaccident.Thisaforementioned
situation is often faced when a vessel is carrying
packaged dangerous goods. The most important
difference between chemical and oil spill may be
relatedtoresponseactions.Theairqualityortherisk
of explosion does not usually cause concern for
response personnel in case of oil spills, but for
chemical spills, it should be carefully evaluated if
someresponseact
ionsaremade.Incaseofchemical
spills,theresponsemaybelimited,inmostcases,to
initial evaluation, establishing exclusions zones,
modelingandmonitoring,followedbyplanningofa
cont
rolled release, recovery or leaving in‐situ. This
processwilltakemanyweeksorevenmonths.
Bothliteraryanddataminingshowedthatneither
major chemical spills nor oil spills, such as Erika or
Prestige, have happened inthe Baltic Sea. However,
every year over 100 shipping accidents (all cargoes
included)ta
keplaceintheBalticSea.Collisions and
groundings are the main types of accident/incidents
intheBalticSea.Humanfactoristhemaincausefor
the accidents, followed by technical reasons. The
largestproportionofaccidentshappensinthesouth‐
western approaches off the Danish and Swedish
coasts. Annually, on av
erage, 15 per cent of all
shipping accidents in theBaltic Sea have involved a
tanker. Less than 5 per cent of the tanker accidents
haveledtospill/pollution.Thespilledsubstancehas
inmostcasesbeenoil or an oil product – onlyvery
few chemical spill cases have been reported in the
Balt
icSea.Consideringbothchemicalandoil tankers,
only very small spills have happened and their
environmentalimpacthasbeenneglected.Sincethere
havebeennomajoraccidentsintheBalticSea,itisnot
possibletolearnaboutaccidentcases.However,there
are some excellent
ly described international tanker
accidents which give valuable lessons to be learned
frombydifferentstakeholdersandrescueservices.
304
There are many parties in the Baltic Sea Region,
including e.g. HELCOM, EMSA and the national
authorities, which are collecting/producing data on
themaritimeaccidentsthathaveoccurredintheBaltic
Sea. In addition, some European or worldwide
databases (e.g. Cedre) contain data of accidents that
have occurred in the
Baltic Sea. However, in the
future,themaritimeaccidentdatabasesonthe Baltic
Sea Region should be improved and harmonised.
Regarding accident investigation reports, each Baltic
Seacountryshouldpublish these reports publicly in
electronic format. It would be worth to contemplate
whetherallaccidentinvestigationreportsconcerning
accidentsthat
haveoccurredintheBalticSeawaters
ortovesselssailingunderaBalticSeacountry’sflag
could be gathered under one public information
service.
Data of the marine pollution effects of most
transported chemicals is limited, mainly because of
the rarity of maritime chemical accidents. Even
though the probability of
major chemical tanker
accidents is very small, much more studies are still
neededontherisksofdifferentchemicalstoboththe
environmentandhumans,aswellasontheeconomic
risksofpossibleaccidents.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisstudyismadeasapartoftheChembaltic(Risks
of Maritime Transportation
of Chemicals in Baltic
Sea)project.SpecialthankstotheEuropeanRegional
Development Fund (ERDF), the Finnish Funding
Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes),
companiessupportingtheresearchproject,andallthe
researchpartnersbeinginvolvedintheproject.
REFERENCES
Bogalecka, M & Popek 2008. Analysis of Sea Accidents in
2006. TransNav, International Journal on Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 2(2):179–
182.
BSU 2012a. The Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty
Investigation’s (BSU) statistics about marine casualties
andserious marineincidentson seaand anaccountof
its activities in
the last accounting year. Available at:
http://www.bsu‐
bund.de/cln_030/nn_101790/EN/publications/Annual__S
tatistics/annual__statistics__node.html?__nnn=true
(accessed10August2012).
BSU 2012b. Investigation Reports 2003–2012. Available at:
http://www.bsu‐
bund.de/cln_030/nn_101790/EN/publications/Investigati
on_20Reports/investigation__report__node.html?__nnn=
true(accessed13August2012).
Bucas, G. & Saliot, A. 2002. Sea transport of animal and
vegetable oils and its environmental consequences.
MarinePollutionBulletin44:1388–1396.
Cedre
2012. The Internet site of Centre of Documentation,
Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water
Pollution. Available at: www.cedre.fr (accessed
10.08.2012).
Cedre and Transport Canada 2012. Understanding Chemical
PollutionatSea.LearningGuide.Brest:Cedre,2012.93pp.
Danish Maritime Accident Investigation Board 2012.
Casualtyreportsfromtheyears1999–2011.Availableat:
http://www.dmaib.com/Sider/CasualtyReports.aspx
(accessed21August2012).
Danish Maritime Authority 2009. Marine Accidents 2009.
Available at:
http://www.dma.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publikati
oner/Maritime‐
accidents/Accidents%20at%20Sea%202009.pdf (accessed
16August2012).
Danish Maritime Authority 2012. About the Division for
Investigation of Maritime Accidents. Available at:
http://www.dma.dk/Investigation/Sider/Aboutus.aspx
(accessed14June2012).
EMSA2007.Maritime AccidentReview2007.Availableat:
http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa‐
documents/download/374/216/23.html (accessed
8
August2012).
EMSA2008.Maritime AccidentReview2008.Availableat:
http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa‐
documents/latest/download/373/216/23.html (accessed 8
August2012).
EMSA2009.Maritime AccidentReview2009.Availableat:
http://emsa.europa.eu/emsa‐
documents/latest/download/308/216/23.html (accessed 8
August2012).
EMSA2010.Maritime AccidentReview2010.Availableat:
http://emsa.europa.eu/implementation‐tasks/accident‐
investigation/download/1388/1219/23.html (accessed 8
August2012).
Estonian Maritime Administration 2012.
Laevaõnnetuste
juurdluskokkuvõtted [Marine casualty reports]. In
Estonian. Available at:
http://www.vta.ee/atp/index.php?id=720 (accessed 17
July2012).
Finnish Safety Investigation Authority 2012.
Vesionnettomuuksien tutkinta [Investigation of water
accident]. In Finnish. Available at:
http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/Etusivu/Tutkintaselo
stukset/Vesiliikenne(accessed17July2012).
French McKay, D.P., Whittier, N. Ward, M. & Santos, C.
2006. Spill hazard evaluation for chemicals shipped
in
bulk using modeling. Environmental Modelling and
Software,vol21,pp.156–159.
GESAMP (2002). The revised GESAMP hazard evaluation
procedure for chemical substances carried by ships,
GESAMPreportsandstudiesNo64,No463/03,137pp.
HASREP 2005. Response to harmful substances spilled at
sea. Task 2 Risk assessment methodology
for the
transport of hazardous and harmful substances in the
EuropeanUnionmaritimewaters.Cedre.32pp.
Harold,P.,Russell,D.&Louchart2011.Riskprioritization
methodology for hazardous & noxious substances for
publichealth,ACROPOL,TheAtlanticRegions´Coastal
PollutionResponse,PembrokeshireCountyCounciland
HealthProtectionAgency.
HELCOM 2009. Overview
of the shipping traffic in the
Baltic Sea. Available at:
http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/shipping/Overview%20of
%20ships%20traffic_updateApril2009.pdf (accessed 21
March2011).
HELCOM 2002. Response to accidents at sea involving
spills of hazardous substances and loss of packaged
dangerousgoods.HELCOMManualonCo‐operationin
Responseto MarinePollution withinthe frameworkof
the Convention on
the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki
Convention),Volume2,1December2002.
HELCOM2012.Accidentsandresponse–Compilationson
Ship Accidents in the Baltic Sea Area. Available at:
http://www.helcom.fi/shipping/accidents/en_GB/accide
nts/(accessed5October2012).
Holma,E.,Heikkilä,A.,Helminen,R.&Kajander,S.2011.
Baltic
PortList2011–Annualcargostatisticsofportsin
theBalticSeaRegion.ApublicationfromtheCentrefor
MaritimeStudies,UniversityofTurku.180p.
305
Häkkinen,J.,Malk,V.,Penttinen,O.‐P.,Mäkelä,R.&Posti,
A. 2012. Environmental risk assessment of most
transportedchemicalsinseaandonland.Ananalysisof
southern Finland and the Baltic Sea. In: Töyli, J.,
Johansson,L.,Lorentz,H., Ojala,L.and Laari,S.(Ed.),
NOFOMA2012–Proceedings
ofthe 24thannualNordic
logistics research network conference, 7–8 June 2012,
Naantali,Finland.
Hänninen, S.&J. Rytkönen2006.Transportationof liquid
bulk chemicals by tankers in the Baltic Sea. Technical
ResearchCentreofFinland.VTTpublications595.121p.
Espoo, Finland. Available at:
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2006/P595.pdf
(accessed14February2012).
Hänninen, M., Kujala, P., Ylitalo, J., & Kuronen, J. 2012.
EstimatingtheNumberofTankerCollisionsintheGulf
of Finland in 2015. TransNav, International Journal on
Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
6(3):367–373.
IMO2007.ManualonChemicalPollution.2007edition.
Kirby Mark F. & Law R. J.
2010. Accidental spills at sea‐
risk, impact, mitigation and the need for co‐ordinated
post‐incident monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:
797–803.
LatvianMaritimeAdministration2012.TheInternetsiteof
LatvianMaritimeAdministration.InLatvian.Available
at:
http://www.jurasadministracija.lv/index.php?action=145
(accessed4June2012).
Law, R.J. & Cambell, J.A. 1998. The effects
of oil and
chemical spillagesatsea. The Journal of the Chartered
Institutions of Water and Environmental Management
12,245–249.
Le Floch, S.,Fuhrer, M., Slangen, P. & Aprin, L. 2012.
Environmental Parameter Effects on the Fate of a
ChemicalSlick.Chapter:02/2012;ISBN:978‐953‐51‐0161‐
1Inbook:Air
Quality‐MonitoringandModeling.
Lithuanian Maritime Safety Administration 2012. Laivų
avarijų ir avarinių atvejų 2001–2010, išnagrinėtų
Lietuvos saugios laivybos administracijoje, statistika
[Shipaccidentsandemergencysituationsin2001–2010,
investigated by the Lithuanian Maritime Safety
Administration, the statistics]. In Lithuanian. Available
at: http://msa.lt/download/1406/avariju_statistika.pdf
(accessed9August2012).
Mamaca,E.,Girin,
M.leFloch,S.&leZirR.2009.Reviewof
chemical spills at sea and lessons learnt. A technical
append.totheInterspill2009conferencewhitepaper.39
pp.
Marchand, M. 2002. Chemical spills at sea. In M. Fingas
(ed.),Thehandbookofhazardousmaterialsspillstechnology.
McGraw‐Hill,
NewYork,2002.
Mullai, A., Larsson, E. & Norrman, A. 2009. A study of
marine incident databases in the Baltic Sea region.
TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation
andSafetyofSeaTransportation3(3):321–326.
Posti, A. & Häkkinen, J. 2012. Survey of transportation of
liquidbulkchemicalsintheBaltic
Sea.Publicationsfrom
theCentreforMaritimeStudiesUniversityofTurku,A
60.
Purnell, K. 2009. Are HSN spills more dangerous than oil
spills?AwhitepaperfortheInterspillConference&the
4thIMOR&DForum,Marseille,May2009.
Riihimäki, V., L. Isotalo, M. Jauhiainen, B. Kemiläinen, I.
Laamanen,
M. Luotamo, R. Riala & A. Zitting 2005.
Kemikaaliturvallisuuden tiedonlähteet. (Sources of
informationaboutthechemicalsafety).InFinnish.2.ed.
151 p. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.
Helsinki,Finland.
Sormunen, O‐V., Goerlandt, F., Häkkinen, J., Posti, A.,
Hänninen,M.,Montewka,J.,Ståhlberg,J. andKujala,P.
(2014).Uncertainty in
maritimerisk analysis: Extended
case‐study on chemical tanker collisions. Proc IMechE,
Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
EnvironmentwithmanuscriptIDJEME‐13‐0056.R2
Sormunen,O.,Goerlandt,F.,Ståhlberg,K.,Montewka,J.&
Kujala,P.(2011).EstimatingSpillsCausedbyChemical
TankerCollisionsintheGulfof
FinlandUsingDifferent
ImpactModels.IntheproceedingsofXIVInternational
ScientificandTechnicalConferenceonMaritimeTraffic
Engineering‐GucmaL.(ed),2011,MaritimeUniversity
ofSzczecin,pp.443‐458
Suominen, M. & Suhonen, M. 2007, Dangerous goods
relatedincidentsandaccidentsintheBalticSearegion,
DaGoBpublicationseries,vol.
7:2007.
Swedish Transport Agency 2012a. Sjöolyckor i svenska
farvatten–Sammanställningavrapporteradesjöolyckor
isvenskafarvattenmedsvenskaochutländskahandels‐
och fiskefartyg, årliga redovisningar 2002–2010
[Maritime accidents in Swedish waters – Summary of
reported marine casualties in Swedish waters with
Swedish and foreign merchant and fishing vessels,
annual
reports 2002–2010]. In Swedish. Available at:
http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/Sjofart/Olyckor‐‐
tillbud/Statistiksammanstallning (accessed 23 August
2012).
Swedish Transport Agency 2012b. Publicerade
haverirapporter i 1997–2011 [Published accident
investigation reports in 1997–2011]. In Swedish.
Available at:
http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/Sjofart/Olyckor‐‐
tillbud/Haverirapporter/Publicerade‐haverirapporter/
(accessed27August2012).
USCoast Guard 1999. HazardousSubstancesSpill Report,
Vol.IIno8.
Wern,
J.2002.Reportonincidentsinvolvingthecarriageof
hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) by sea.
DepartmentforTransport.London.
