See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322854845

Risk assessment for a shipyard from romanian black sea coast

Article  in  Environmental engineering and management journal · December 2003

DOI: 10.30638/eemj.2003.026

CITATIONS READS
3 37

3 authors, including:

Brindusa Mihaela Sluser Maria Gavrilescu

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi
67 PUBLICATIONS   678 CITATIONS    259 PUBLICATIONS   5,883 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biosorption and bioaccumulation in the bioremediation of environmental compartments contaminated with persistent pollutants (BIOSACC) View project

11th International Conference on Environmental Engineering and Management ICEEM11 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Gavrilescu on 10 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Decemder 2003, Vol.2, No 4, 303-316
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

“Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania

_______________________________________________________________________
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR A SHIPYARD FROM
ROMANIAN BLACK SEA COAST

Brindusa Robu∗, Maria Gavrilescu, Matei Macoveanu

“Gh. Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Faculty of Industrial Chemistry, Environmental

Engineering Department, Bd. D. Mangeron 71 A, 700050 IASI, Romania

Abstract

This paper presents a risk assessment case study for a Shipyard from Black Sea Coast,
Romania. The first step in this analysis was the identification of pollution sources, and
pollutants, and their impact on environment and human health. The next step of risk
assessment was the estimation and quantification of risks, using the risk tree analysis and
matrix methods. The main Romanian legislative regulations were used (Ministerial
Order184/1997, Environmental Protection Law 137/2000, and Governmental Ordinance
91/2002).

Keywords: environment, risk assessment, risk reduction, shipyard, pollution, health

1. Introduction

Shipbuilding and ship repair and/or maintenance are major industrial

categories, with a high potential for the emission of pollutants into the
environment. The waste streams can be solid, liquid or gaseous in nature and are
released on land, to streams and the atmosphere, respectively. Depending on the
processes, raw materials, control techniques and other environmental
management practices at individual shipyards, the waste characteristics and
stream compositions can change. Based on these variations in emissions,
individual shipyards may have different levels of impact on human health and
the environment.
This paper presents a risk assessment study for a shipyard, based on the
analysis of the emission data that consider the pollutants in air and water. The
evaluated site is a shipyard on Romanian Black Sea Coast, whose main activities
consist of building and repairing ships. The main pollutants from this site that
affect the human health and ecosystems consist of powders, ZnO aerosols, CO,
NOx and VOC-NM (volatile organic compounds - non-methane). The oil
hydrocarbons have no significant influence on human health so that they
shouldn’t be considered as a major risk for people, but they can have a major
risk for marine ecosystems, only in the situation when the ships don’t follow the
Local Dock Regulation, which requires them to clean their equipment, oil tanks

∗
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: brobu@ch.tuiasi.ro
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

or other installations before entering the port. In this case, the ships owners are
held responsible.

2. Experimental data

After analyzing the environmental factors from the site, the following
pollutants were found (Table 1):
• for air: VOC-NM, ZnO aerosols, CO and NOx , powders;
• for water: oil hydrocarbons, as a possible pollutant

Table 1. The air pollutants found on the investigated shipyard site. Experimental
data

No. Indicators/ Measured MAC (mg/mc)* Method of

pollutants concentrations (according to Romanian analyzing
mg/mc standards)**
1. VOC-NM 4000 100 SR ISO 9487-01
2. CO 32 170 SR ISO 8186-97
3. NOx 16 450 STAS 10329-75
4. ZnO aerosols 0.392 1 STAS 12457-86
5. Powder 7.25 50 STAS 10195-75

*Maximal Allowed Concentration

**Governmental Order 462/1993

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Applied procedure

Four steps to risk assessment were concerned:

• hazard identification;
• exposure assessment;
• dose-response assessment;
• risk analysis and characterization.

During the first step, it was attempted to determine what health problems
are caused by specific pollutants. The people from the investigated site are
exposed to risks like ZnO aerosols pollution, CO, NOx, powder and VOC-NM
pollution. Exposure assessment aims to determine how much of a pollutant
people are exposed and/or how many people are exposed. Considering that the
work schedule of this shipyard site is 8 hours daily, 5 days per week, the
exposure time to the pollution is estimated at 6 hours/day, i.e., 1500
hours/year.
To determine the exposure dose, the worst scenario was taken into
account, using very high values of pollutants concentrations (the maximum

304
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

values at pollution sources). The concentrations of pollutants were measured in

different locations of the site, at different moments, for almost one year.

The exposure was investigated by taking samples and analyzing them in

the field or at laboratories. The results indicate the concentrations of pollutants
present at a specific location. Also, the amount of exposure to toxic pollutants,
as well the humans possible reaction to the pollutants was assessed.

The exposure dose/concentration (c) to Volatile Organic Compounds

pollution (VOC-NM, equivalent toluene) is 4000 mg/m3, while the exposure
concentration to ZnO aerosol pollution is 0.392 mg/m3. The exposure
concentration for humans to powder pollution is 7.25 mg/m3, and those to
gaseous pollutants are CCO= 32 mg/m3 and CNOx= 16 mg/m3, respectively. A
specific percent of the pollutants inhaled by humans are retained/absorbed by the
human body, and another one is eliminated through biological process. (Musch,
1990)
The risk sources are the processes, which generate the powder (i.e.
acetylene plant), the volatile organic non-methane compounds (i.e. painting
process), CO, NOx (i.e. burning and weld processes) and ZnO aerosols. In this
case the receptors are the people from this site (i.e. the workers) and the people
who live on this site temporary, about 500 m from industrial sectors. The
exposure occurs in the kinetic phase, when people are very close to the pollution
sources, and in the dynamic phase, when there is no direct contact between
humans and pollutants. In both situations the human body can retain a fraction of
the pollutant concentration. The literature (Strik, 1990; Vasilov, 2001) shows
that for this situation, approximately 4% of ZnO pollutants, 90% powders, 5%
VOC-NM (equivalent toluene) and 10% CO and NOx are absorbed by the human
body. Thus, the human body exposed to the pollution from this site, for one
year, is exposed to a risk of retaining 200 mg/m3 VOC-NM, 0.0157 mg/m3
ZnO aerosols, 6.5 mg/m3 powders, 3.2 mg/m3 CO, 1.6 mg/mc NOx.

The Maximal Allowed Concentrations (MAC), from toxicological point of

view, are the following (Minister of Work and Social Solidarity and Minister of
Health, 2002):
• MAC VOC-NM, expressed in toluene: 100 mg/m3
• MAC ZnO aerosols: 5 mg/m3
• MAC powder: 5 mg/m3
• MAC CO: 20 mg/m3
• MAC NOx: 5 mg/m3
Notice that the values of VOC-NM and powder concentrations are higher
than MAC. In this situation, there is a likely risk for human beings from this site
to become sick, but according to shipyard Medical Lab and to the medical
bulletins of the local Preventive Medicine Center, no work illness was registered
during the years 1999-2000.
Information from the hazard and exposure assessment, and dose-response

305
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

relationship help to estimate the extra risk to human health and the environment
that is caused by the pollutants on the shipyard site.
For this purpose, different scenarios were developed as sets of conditions
about sources, pathway, and production processes to cover all routes of release
or discharge to the environment from all relevant sources.

3.2. The worst scenarios of risks - the mechanisms

The site presents risks of accidental pollution in the following situations:

• malfunction of waste water pumping station;
• the accidental or intentional discharge of oil products from ships into the
sea;
• accidental leakages of oil products from store house or different sectors.
Thus, the major risks where environmental factors from the shipyard site
are concerned (especially Black Sea ecosystems) can be illustrated through the
analysis of two scenarios:

First scenario: Risk of fires/explosions

Fires/explosions can appear when the shipyard managers/workers don’t
follow the human protection regulations, and the risks can arise from liquids and
gases usage, from fuel storage and acetylene plant, or from electrical equipment
(Fig. 1).

Fig.1. The risk of fires/explosions - first scenario

Second scenario: Risk of accidentally oil pollution

The accidental pollution hazards/risks can appear when the internal
regulations for oil usage are not followed, or wastewater from ships is

306
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

discharged into the sea, without any treatment. In this situation, the oil
hydrocarbons float on the water surface because their solubility is very low (part
of them can evaporate), and could also reach the marine ecosystems (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Risk of accidental oil pollution - second scenario

Wastewaters that contain oil hydrocarbons could be accidentally

discharged into the sea, if the wastewater pumping station doesn’t work. This
may be a lower risk of seawater pollution and marine ecosystem damage occurs.
A greater risk could arise when the washing wastewater from ships or petrol
tanks is discharged into the sea. This scenario leads to a major risk for marine
ecosystems, because the oil hydrocarbons can remain on the water surface for a
long time as a result of their low solubility into water. Part of the oil
hydrocarbons evaporates, this way becoming an air pollution factor for the local
area. Because of the climatic characteristics of this area, water pollutants can
migrate that makes the effects of the hydrocarbons pollution, generated by the
shipyard site hard to be estimated. There is no beach close to this site, and in
case of pollution, people will not be exposed to any risk (i.e. risk to become
sick).

307
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

4. Risk assessment

4.1. General frame

Environmental risk assessment is an important tool of environmental

management, as well as environmental impact assessment and life cycle
assessment. Environmental impact assessment is a management tool used for
pollutants identification from a site, analyzing of negative effects on
environment in order to elaborate a pollution minimization strategy.
(Macoveanu, 2003; Robu and Teodosiu, 2002). The literature (Calow, 1998;
Gavrilescu, 2003; Richardson, 1988; Varduca, 2002) recommends the following
methods to assess the risk:
• Checking lists;
• Safety review;
• Risk index;
• Preliminary hazard analysis;
• HAZOP;
• “What if”;
• FMEA- Fault Method Effects Analysis;
• Fault Tree analysis;
• Event Tree analysis;
• Cause – effect analysis;
• Human fault analysis.
To adopt one of these methods for risk assessment (estimation and
quantification), the goal of risk evaluation should be taken into consideration.
This means that the first task should be the analysis of the evaluated objective,
site, flow sheet, and process. The second task considers the systematical
identification of hazards and risks. Table 2 presents a base for choosing the best
practice of risk assessment for different situations (Calow, 1998; Richardson M.,
1988; Varduca, 2002). It can be observed that for existing installations one of the
best options, the most recommended method for risk assessment is Event Tree
Analysis.

4.2. Risk Tree Analysis

In risk assessment for a shipyard from Black Sea Coast six diagrams were
elaborated, (Figs. 3 to 8), considering the “source – pathway- receptors” relation,
for different hazardous situations.
The following situations were considered hazardous:
• Oil leakages could appear from an oil tank, and that could cause fires/
explosions, but if the alarm system is on there is no risk (Fig. 3).
• Wastewaters discharged into the Black Sea are a significant risk for
marine ecosystem (Fig.4). The same risk of pollution of marine
ecosystem could appear in the situation of a malfunction of the

308
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

wastewater pumping station (Fig. 5).

• The human body is exposed to powder, ZnO aerosols and CO, NOx
pollution, and tree diagrams were drawn for each situation (Fig. 6-8).

Table 2. Best practices for risk assessment

Site New Exploitation Improvement

choosing/ objectives,
pre-project installation
level
List checking method B B
Safety review method C C
Risk index method C B
PHA A C
HAZOP C A
“WHAT IF” A C
FMEA C A
Fault Tree Analysis C A
Event Tree Analysis C A
Cause – Effect C B
analysis
Human Fault Analysis C A
level of new or level
existing
objectives
A B
A C
A C
C A
B A
B A
A B
A B
A B
A B
A B

Observations: A- the best option

B- could be used
C- not recommended option

Fig. 3. Fire risk tree analysis

309
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

Fig. 4. Risk tree analysis of Black Sea pollution with oil from ships

Fig. 5. Risk tree analysis of oil hydrocarbons pollution

310
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

Fig. 6. Risk tree analysis of air pollution with powder from industrial sector

Fig. 7. Risk tree analysis of ZnO aerosols pollution

311
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

Fig. 8. Risk tree analysis of CO and NOx pollution

4.3. Quantitative risk assessment

In accordance with the Romanian legislation (Ministerial Order

184/1997), risk quantification is based on a simple risk classification system,
where the probability and severity are classified in a descending order, using the
following scale:

Simple Model
Probability classification Severity classification
3 = high 3 = major
2 = medium 2 = medium
1 = low 1 = low

The risk can be quantified considering these two factors (probability and
severity), by multiplication of probability and severity, to obtain a comparative
number, for example: 3 (significant) x 2 (medium) = 6. This allows comparing
different risks. When the risk quantification result is high or very high (i.e. risk
6), there is a significant risk and in this case the risk management should be a
priority.

Risk 1: powder pollution

The probability of a powder pollution event is high for the activities of
this site, and using the 1 to 3 scale, (Ministerial Order 184/1997) the risk can be
quantificated.

312
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

Riskpol.powder = Probability x Severity

Riskpol.powder = 3 x 2 = 6

Risk 2: ZnO aerosols pollution

Riskpol.aerosols = Probability x Severity
Riscpol.aerosols = 3 x 1 = 3

Risk 3: VOC-NM pollution (equivalent toluen)

Considering the high measured concentration of VOC-NM, it is
estimated that the probability for this kind of pollution to arise is high, but the
severity is not so high, and the risk can be:
Riskpol.VOCNM = Probability x Severity
Riskpol.VOCNM = 3 x 2 = 6

Risk 4: oil hidrocarbs pollution

Riskhidroc.pol = Probability x Severity
Rischidroc.pol = 2 x 2 = 4

Risk 5: CO si NOx pollution

Riskgases= Probability x Severity
Riscgases = 3 x 1 = 3

Risk 6: fire/explotions
Riskfire = Probability x Severity
Riscfires = 1 x 2 = 2
Risk 7: accidentally pollution
Riskaccid. pol. = Probability x Severity
Riscpol.accid. = 1 x 2 = 2

Risk 8: work illnesses (because of human exposure to powder, VOC-NM, CO,

NOx pollution)
Riskillnesses = Probability x Severity
Riscillnesses = 1 x 2 = 2

It can be observed that VOC-NM pollution, powder and oil hidrocarbons

pollution (only for marine ecosystems) represent a major risk for human health
and ecosystems. The results of risk quantification are depicted bellow (Table 3).
Considering the values of risk quantification, the risk can be classified as
follows:
• 6 ≤ R ≤9 (major/significant risk);
• 3 ≤ R <6 (medium/acceptable risk),
• 1 ≤ R < 3 (minor/low risk).

313
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

From the data presented in Table 3, the following conclusions can be

drawn:
• VOC –NM and powder pollution has a major/significant risk;
• CO, NOx, oil hidrocarbs and Zn aerosol pollution has a medium/acceptable
risk;
• Accidental pollution and fires have a minor/low risk.

Table 3. Probability-severity- risk

Pollutants Probability Severity Risk

Powder 3 2 6
ZnO aerosols 3 1 3
VOC - NM 3 2 6
Oil hidrocarbs 2 2 4
CO si NOx 3 1 3
Fires 1 2 2
Accidentally 1 2 2
Work illnesses 1 2 2

4.4. The matrix of qualitative risk assessment

The risk is defined as the likelihood an event can have negative effects in
a specific period of time to arise. It is described by the following equation
(Ministerial Order184/1997):
Risk = Threat/Hazard x Exposure
The risk assessment is defined as a process for identification, estimation
and management of hazards which can arise from hazardous chemicals or
installations (World Bank, 1994). The risk assessment involves risk estimation
(including hazard and consequence identification, the severity of effects and the
probability of a dangerous event) and risk quantification (including the
quantification of hazards and effects/consequences for humans and/or for
environment). Considering the severity of the consequences it can be decided
whether or not improvement measures are necessary. Table 4 shows the matrix
for risk assessment considering the source- pathway- receptors relation.

5. Measures for risk reduction

1. Leakages of oil hydrocarbons into seawater can still occur, even if some
prevention measures are taken. This demands the necessity for good
maintenance of marine dams or barriers, in order to stop the pollution caused by
leakages.
2. It is recommended to require an increase in exigency regarding the
management of industrial activities, as well as, the usage of new treatment
systems of gases fluxes from industrial sector.

314
 Risk assessment for a shipyard from Romanian Black Sea Coast

Table 4. Risk matrix considering the sorce- pathway- receptors relation.

Pollutant Hazard Source Pathway Recept Is the Risk Is there

or receptor necessary
affected? remediation
measures?
Powder toxic Industr. Emission Air Yes Signif. Yes
sector inhalation humans yes Signif. Yes
Zn aerosol Fito- Industr. Emission Air yes accept Yes
toxic sector inhalation humans yes low No
CO Fito- Solder Emission air yes accept No
toxic Proc. inhalation humans yes low No
NO2 Fito- Solder Emission air yes accept No
toxic Proc. inhalation humans yes low No
VOC-NM Fito- Painting Emission air yes Signif. Yes
toxic process inhalation humans yes Signif. Yes
Oil fitotoxic Ships Discharge Water Yes accept Yes
hidrocarbs Discharge humans No low No
Discharge environ Yes accept Yes
ment

3. It is necessary to diagnose and continually improve the current level of

wastewater sewerage system (including rain water).
4. There is a need to use new equipment in order to retain the powder generated
by industrial activities from different sectors.
5. To reduce the illness risk of the workers, the in-door painting processes
should be assisted by retaining and treatment systems for VOC-NM pollutants.
6. It is recommended to implement the Environmental Management Systems in
order to reduce the consumptions and meet the environmental regulations.
7. The managers of this site and the local authority should continuously verify if
the owners of ships comply the Local Dock Regulation.
8. It is recommended for the managers of the evaluated site to apply to
subcontractors, who have to remove oil or other wastes (as it is their
responsibility to do so), the second part audit, concerning the conformation of all
activities with Romanian environmental legislation.

6. Conclusions

From the investigated site – a shipyard on the Romanian Black Sea Coast,
the following risks arise:
• major risks: powder pollution (score R = 6) and VOC-NM pollution (score
R=6),
• medium risks: oil hydrocarbons pollution (score R=4), ZnO aerosols
pollution (score R=3), CO (score R=3) and NOx (score R=3),
• minor risks: accidental pollution (score R= 2), fire risk (score R= 2), works
illnesses (score R= 2).
On the evaluated site the risks of accidental pollution with oil

315
 Robu et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 (2003), 4, 303-316

hydrocarbons or fires can occur. The first kind of pollution is caused by oil
leakages into the Black Sea; this imposes the necessity of a good maintenance of
marine dams/barriers that have the role of stopping the leakages. There is also a
need to improve the treatment systems used for depollution of seawater and for
retaining oil hydrocarbons, if they are discharged into the Black Sea. This
environmental problem would be solved efficiently, if the managers of the
shipyard site will collaborate with other environmental organizations, even other
dealers from this site.

References

Calow P., (1998), Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management,

Oxford Press, UK.
Environmental Protection Law, (2002), Environmental Protection Law no. 137 from
20.12.1995, republished in 2000, OUG 91/2002.
Gavrilescu M., (2003), Environmental risk assessment and management, ECOZONE
Press, Romania.
Governmental Ordinance, (2002), Governmental Ordinance 34/21.03.2002 regarding
Integrated pollution prevention and control.
Governmental Ordinance, (2002), Governmental Ordinance 91/2002 regarding the
modification of Environmental Protection Law no. 137/2000.
Lees F., (1996), Loss prevention in the process industries, Oxford Press.
Leeuwangh P., (1990), Ecotoxicological Research on Aquatic and Terrestrial
Environment, The lectures on ecotoxicology, The Netherlands.
Macoveanu M., (2003), Methods for environmental impact assessment, ECOZONE
Press, Romania.
The Minister of Work and Social Solidarity/The Minister of Health and Family, (2002),
General Norms for work protection, Tridona- Oltenita Press, Romania.
Ministerial Order, (1997), Ministerial Order no. 184/1997 for approving Procedures for
compliance audit, published in Romanian Official Monitor, no. 303 bis,
6.XI.1997.
Ministerial Order, (1997), Ministerial Order no. 536 from 23.06.1997 for approving of
Norms on higiene and the recomandation regarding environment of people.
Ministerial Order, (1993), Ministerial Order 426/1993.
Musch A., (1990), Pesticides, metals and natural toxins, The lectures on ecotoxicology,
The Netherlands.
Pinc R.N., Serth R.W., (1990), Model air emissions better.Hydrocarbon Process, 75-80.
Richardson M., (1988), Risk assessment of the chemicals in the environment, Royal
Society of Chemistry, London.
Robu B., Teodosiu C., (2002), Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 1,
243-254.
Rojanschi V., (1991), Mediul Inconjurator, 2, 45-52.
Strik J.J., (1990), General ecotoxicology, The lectures on ecotoxicology, The
Netherlands.
Varduca A, Moldoveanu A.M., Moldoveanu G.A., (2002), Pollution, prevention and
control, MatrixRom Press, Bucharest.
Vasilov M., (2001), Health risk assessment in the actual atmospheric pollution with
cement powders and irritant gases conditions, Institute of Public Health, Iasi.
World Bank, (1994), Environmental assessment and development, Washington DC.

316

View publication stats