- Email: [email protected]
Dangerous cargoes
March 1 9 7 2 • Volume 3 • Number 3
Dangerous Cargoes The pollution of Cornish beaches by toxic chemicals washed up from the wreck of the Germania in January (see this issue, p 35) was variously described at the time as an environmental disaster, as the worst pollution of beaches since the Torrey Canyon disaster, or as a fairly routine matter which the authorities quickly had well in hand. The difficulty a non-specialist may have had in deciding how seriously to take the whole affair was not lessened by the fact that the news media carried almost hourly bulletins of the clean-up operations during the week or so that they lasted and then allowed the whole business to disappear without trace. It is easy to make a big drama of the incident and just as easy to play the whole thing down. It was certainly not an environmental disaster. Indeed, there is no evidence, and very little chance, that the marine environment suffered to any detectable extent. Nor can it be supposed that there is anything particularly novel about this kind of beach pollution. While most of the chemicals carried by the Germania were nasty, they were not particularly exotic and dozens of similar cargoes are carried by vessels in the English Channel every day. With shipping accidents or loss of deck cargo in bad weather happening once or twice a week in the Channel, there is every reason to think that this kind of pollution has been common enough in the past. Miscellaneous junk washing ashore is almost a normal feature on many beaches. In the past, cleaning it up has been a purely local affair ignored by the rest of the community, but now, with the heightened interest in environmental pollution, such an event, unlike its predecessors, suddenly becomes newsworthy. Accusations that the Depart~aent of the Environment was slow off the mark in dealing with the drums of chemicals as they arrived on the beaches were also somewhat misplaced. When there is a drum leaking noxious, stinking fumes on your beach it is natural to expect someone to do something about it--and quickly. At Coverack, where this happened, the police and coast-guard promptly buried it where it lay, which seems
Noxious Chemicals
,
Heavy Metal Pollution
Macmillan Journals Limited
sensible enough in the first instance. But a proper cleanup calls for something more elaborate and it is necessary to have some idea of what is in the drums before that is possible. To do this involved either identifying the material on the beach--not an easy task---or narrowing down the search by getting an idea of what to expect. That meant deciding which ship the drums might have come from, getting hold of the ship's manifest and discovering what the trade names of its chemical cargo signified. Since the Germania had been on fire, even this was no guarantee that by the time the drums reached the shore their contents would be in the same state as when they left the factory. Under these circumstances, to have completed the clean-up within a couple of weeks involving as it did the search of 300 km or more of beach, seems a pretty good effort. However, to suggest that the clean-up was prompt and efficient and that in any case no damage was done is not enough. It is the sort of comment to soothe public anxiety but which ignores the whole underlying problem. The business of transporting toxic, noxious or dangerous chemicals has badly needed attention for years and with any luck the Germania incident will provide more impetus to getting adequate international regulation and control. One of the first tasks of the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP), set up jointly by a number of United Nations' agencies in 1969, was to draw up a list of hazardous cargoes and this was finally agreed and published in 1971 (see Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1: 49, 1970; 2: 49, 1971). The list was in two parts: chemicals which are highly toxic but are readily hydrolysed or broken down in the sea and therefore present only a local hazard, and chemicals which are persistent and therefore present a greater, long-term hazard, probably to the world at large. So far so good, but clearly neither far nor good enough. In the first place, although noxious chemicals are identified, they are often packed, transported and marketed under meaningless trade names. The same
D e g r a d a t i o n of Oil •
The Great Lakes
•
Elastic Thread Pollution •
Peruvian Fisheries
35p O.K.
Dangerous Cargoes News Torrey Canyon All Over Again? Heavy Metals in British Coastal Waters RTZ in Trouble Environment Quality Control Field Day on the Lakes The Health of the Ocean Government Pollution Research
Sydney Sewerage System Japan Controls Navigators Shallow Waters Marine Environmental Quality Reports Fisheries Management in Peru
page 33 35 35 36 37 37 37 38
38 38
38 38 39
A. Guerra
Microbial Degradation of Oil G. D. Floodgate Elastic Thread Pollution of Puffins
41 43
J. L. F. Parslow and D. J. Jefferies
Mineralization of dissolved carbohydrates in tropical and temperate inshore waters
45
J. Austin and J. D. Redmond
Parliament Agreement on Dumping The Germania Incident
47 47
Book Reviews Underwater Science
47
P. E. Gibbs Environmental Filmstrip R. B. Clark
48
Conferences
48
material may appear under several different names from different manufacturers and even the same company may market an identical product under different names in different parts of the world simply because of local resistance to German, or French, or English, or any other, sounding names. A good many products are complicated mixtures. It is no good demanding that the chemical constituents or active ingredients should be listed on the container. This is often done in any case, but by the time drums have been exposed to fire and the sea, as in the case of the cargo of the Germania, one is lucky if any kinds of markings are still legible by the time the pollutants come ashore. Some assistance might be gained if it were known what a ship involved in an accident was carrying. The suggestions that ships' manifests might somehow or other be registered is obviously cumbersome and impracticable. The proposal that the manifest of a ship involved in an accident should be immediately available and countries likely to be on the receiving end of the resulting pollution warned, has more in its favour, but even this is unlikely to make much difference to the subsequent train of events. Predicting where drums of toxic chemicals will fetch up is not that easy. Even if some of the noxious pollutants will cause only local damage, it certainly need not be confined to the area of the wreck, as w e h a v e s e e n . Floating drums from the Germania drifted 120-160 km to the Cornish coast; they could have gone much farther. But at least in an emergency these can be spotted from the air and dealt with at sea if n e c e s s a r y . Heavy drums rolling along the seabed are a different
34
matter and it is only fairly recently that it has become generally agreed that they can travel a considerable distance even in deep water where they might have been thought beyond the influence of storms. The 20,000 tons of German chemical warfare material dumped in 100 m depth 40 km offshore in the southern Baltic at the end of World War II have continued to plague fishermen ever since and are still causing problems in Danish waters well away from the dumping grounds. The near universal practice of packing these materials into cylindrical drums means that they roll very easily (only spherical containers would be more mobile). This ability of containers to travel considerable distances on the seabed has been recognized in the new international agreement on dumping at sea, which has now been signed, but while this may ease that problem, it does nothing to help over drums accidentally lost at sea. One thing is clear, there will be little real improvement until shipping practices and the attitude of ships' masters and crews change. At present the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) has rules about stowing hazardous cargoes, but these are only advisory and ultimate responsibility rests with the ship's master. So do shipping movements in crowded sea lanes in the Channel. Any number of committees may draw up lists of dangerous materials and recommend that special precautions be taken over the shipment of them because of their pollution hazard, but when it comes to actual practice, everything is left to the discretion of the captain of a cargo vessel. Many such vessels carry an incredible variety of goods, parcels of which are picked up and laid down at a number of ports in the course of a single voyage. It is wildly unrealistic to think that a ship's master, under these conditions, can have a serious knowledge of the nature of the goods he is carrying and what the particular hazards of each are. At best he knows whether or not they offer any danger to his ship but he cannot be expected to know much more than that. The careless way in which materials that are very dangerous to the environment are handled and transported has been scandalous for years. An extremely simple and general coding of any dangerous materials according to the nature of the hazard they offered (fire. long-term pollution, short-term pollution, public health, etc.) might be a first step in indicating what precautions had to be taken and whether to call out the fire brigade or the doctor if things went wrong. If that were done it would be reasonable to insist on proper behaviour by those who have to handle and carry these cargoes, While prevention is always better than cure, and any measures which will make the cure more effective are welcome, there seems no way in which shipwrecks and accidents at sea can be abolished. Occasional beach pollution from this source can be handled without much difficulty providing the organization for it exists. A more serious problem is the rather casual way in which dangerous persistent pollutants are packaged, handled and transported. A realization that these are dangerous cargoes, and treating them as such, would be an important step forward, but there is not much sign of this on the horizon so far.
Dangerous Cargoes The pollution of Cornish beaches by toxic chemicals washed up from the wreck of the Germania in January (see this issue, p 35) was variously described at the time as an environmental disaster, as the worst pollution of beaches since the Torrey Canyon disaster, or as a fairly routine matter which the authorities quickly had well in hand. The difficulty a non-specialist may have had in deciding how seriously to take the whole affair was not lessened by the fact that the news media carried almost hourly bulletins of the clean-up operations during the week or so that they lasted and then allowed the whole business to disappear without trace. It is easy to make a big drama of the incident and just as easy to play the whole thing down. It was certainly not an environmental disaster. Indeed, there is no evidence, and very little chance, that the marine environment suffered to any detectable extent. Nor can it be supposed that there is anything particularly novel about this kind of beach pollution. While most of the chemicals carried by the Germania were nasty, they were not particularly exotic and dozens of similar cargoes are carried by vessels in the English Channel every day. With shipping accidents or loss of deck cargo in bad weather happening once or twice a week in the Channel, there is every reason to think that this kind of pollution has been common enough in the past. Miscellaneous junk washing ashore is almost a normal feature on many beaches. In the past, cleaning it up has been a purely local affair ignored by the rest of the community, but now, with the heightened interest in environmental pollution, such an event, unlike its predecessors, suddenly becomes newsworthy. Accusations that the Depart~aent of the Environment was slow off the mark in dealing with the drums of chemicals as they arrived on the beaches were also somewhat misplaced. When there is a drum leaking noxious, stinking fumes on your beach it is natural to expect someone to do something about it--and quickly. At Coverack, where this happened, the police and coast-guard promptly buried it where it lay, which seems
Noxious Chemicals
,
Heavy Metal Pollution
Macmillan Journals Limited
sensible enough in the first instance. But a proper cleanup calls for something more elaborate and it is necessary to have some idea of what is in the drums before that is possible. To do this involved either identifying the material on the beach--not an easy task---or narrowing down the search by getting an idea of what to expect. That meant deciding which ship the drums might have come from, getting hold of the ship's manifest and discovering what the trade names of its chemical cargo signified. Since the Germania had been on fire, even this was no guarantee that by the time the drums reached the shore their contents would be in the same state as when they left the factory. Under these circumstances, to have completed the clean-up within a couple of weeks involving as it did the search of 300 km or more of beach, seems a pretty good effort. However, to suggest that the clean-up was prompt and efficient and that in any case no damage was done is not enough. It is the sort of comment to soothe public anxiety but which ignores the whole underlying problem. The business of transporting toxic, noxious or dangerous chemicals has badly needed attention for years and with any luck the Germania incident will provide more impetus to getting adequate international regulation and control. One of the first tasks of the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP), set up jointly by a number of United Nations' agencies in 1969, was to draw up a list of hazardous cargoes and this was finally agreed and published in 1971 (see Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1: 49, 1970; 2: 49, 1971). The list was in two parts: chemicals which are highly toxic but are readily hydrolysed or broken down in the sea and therefore present only a local hazard, and chemicals which are persistent and therefore present a greater, long-term hazard, probably to the world at large. So far so good, but clearly neither far nor good enough. In the first place, although noxious chemicals are identified, they are often packed, transported and marketed under meaningless trade names. The same
D e g r a d a t i o n of Oil •
The Great Lakes
•
Elastic Thread Pollution •
Peruvian Fisheries
35p O.K.
Dangerous Cargoes News Torrey Canyon All Over Again? Heavy Metals in British Coastal Waters RTZ in Trouble Environment Quality Control Field Day on the Lakes The Health of the Ocean Government Pollution Research
Sydney Sewerage System Japan Controls Navigators Shallow Waters Marine Environmental Quality Reports Fisheries Management in Peru
page 33 35 35 36 37 37 37 38
38 38
38 38 39
A. Guerra
Microbial Degradation of Oil G. D. Floodgate Elastic Thread Pollution of Puffins
41 43
J. L. F. Parslow and D. J. Jefferies
Mineralization of dissolved carbohydrates in tropical and temperate inshore waters
45
J. Austin and J. D. Redmond
Parliament Agreement on Dumping The Germania Incident
47 47
Book Reviews Underwater Science
47
P. E. Gibbs Environmental Filmstrip R. B. Clark
48
Conferences
48
material may appear under several different names from different manufacturers and even the same company may market an identical product under different names in different parts of the world simply because of local resistance to German, or French, or English, or any other, sounding names. A good many products are complicated mixtures. It is no good demanding that the chemical constituents or active ingredients should be listed on the container. This is often done in any case, but by the time drums have been exposed to fire and the sea, as in the case of the cargo of the Germania, one is lucky if any kinds of markings are still legible by the time the pollutants come ashore. Some assistance might be gained if it were known what a ship involved in an accident was carrying. The suggestions that ships' manifests might somehow or other be registered is obviously cumbersome and impracticable. The proposal that the manifest of a ship involved in an accident should be immediately available and countries likely to be on the receiving end of the resulting pollution warned, has more in its favour, but even this is unlikely to make much difference to the subsequent train of events. Predicting where drums of toxic chemicals will fetch up is not that easy. Even if some of the noxious pollutants will cause only local damage, it certainly need not be confined to the area of the wreck, as w e h a v e s e e n . Floating drums from the Germania drifted 120-160 km to the Cornish coast; they could have gone much farther. But at least in an emergency these can be spotted from the air and dealt with at sea if n e c e s s a r y . Heavy drums rolling along the seabed are a different
34
matter and it is only fairly recently that it has become generally agreed that they can travel a considerable distance even in deep water where they might have been thought beyond the influence of storms. The 20,000 tons of German chemical warfare material dumped in 100 m depth 40 km offshore in the southern Baltic at the end of World War II have continued to plague fishermen ever since and are still causing problems in Danish waters well away from the dumping grounds. The near universal practice of packing these materials into cylindrical drums means that they roll very easily (only spherical containers would be more mobile). This ability of containers to travel considerable distances on the seabed has been recognized in the new international agreement on dumping at sea, which has now been signed, but while this may ease that problem, it does nothing to help over drums accidentally lost at sea. One thing is clear, there will be little real improvement until shipping practices and the attitude of ships' masters and crews change. At present the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) has rules about stowing hazardous cargoes, but these are only advisory and ultimate responsibility rests with the ship's master. So do shipping movements in crowded sea lanes in the Channel. Any number of committees may draw up lists of dangerous materials and recommend that special precautions be taken over the shipment of them because of their pollution hazard, but when it comes to actual practice, everything is left to the discretion of the captain of a cargo vessel. Many such vessels carry an incredible variety of goods, parcels of which are picked up and laid down at a number of ports in the course of a single voyage. It is wildly unrealistic to think that a ship's master, under these conditions, can have a serious knowledge of the nature of the goods he is carrying and what the particular hazards of each are. At best he knows whether or not they offer any danger to his ship but he cannot be expected to know much more than that. The careless way in which materials that are very dangerous to the environment are handled and transported has been scandalous for years. An extremely simple and general coding of any dangerous materials according to the nature of the hazard they offered (fire. long-term pollution, short-term pollution, public health, etc.) might be a first step in indicating what precautions had to be taken and whether to call out the fire brigade or the doctor if things went wrong. If that were done it would be reasonable to insist on proper behaviour by those who have to handle and carry these cargoes, While prevention is always better than cure, and any measures which will make the cure more effective are welcome, there seems no way in which shipwrecks and accidents at sea can be abolished. Occasional beach pollution from this source can be handled without much difficulty providing the organization for it exists. A more serious problem is the rather casual way in which dangerous persistent pollutants are packaged, handled and transported. A realization that these are dangerous cargoes, and treating them as such, would be an important step forward, but there is not much sign of this on the horizon so far.