The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), to which the Russian Federation is a party, enters into force on September 8, 2017.

With regard to ships flying the State Flag of the Russian Federation, the Convention applies both when sailing in Russian waters (ports) and when these ships enter foreign ports.

The Convention does not apply to:

ships that are not designed or built to handle ballast water and sediment;

ships operating only in waters under the jurisdiction of the ship's flag state (territorial sea and internal sea waters), unless the ship's flag state determines that the discharge of ballast water from such ships will either degrade the environment, human health, property or resources - its or adjacent other states, or cause damage to them;

ships that operate only in waters under the jurisdiction of another state, if that state permits such an exception;

ships that operate only in waters under the jurisdiction of one state and on the high seas (without entering foreign territorial seas or internal sea waters), unless such state decides that the discharge of ballast water from such ships will either worsen the environment, human health , property or resources - their own or adjacent other states, or cause damage to them;

warships, naval auxiliary ships or other ships owned or operated by the state and used only for government non-commercial service;

ships carrying in closed tanks permanent ballast water that is not subject to discharge;

dredgers in relation to the water in their holds;

floating storage units and floating production, storage and offloading units.

In other words, the Convention, among other things, does not apply to ships operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and on the high seas (with the exception of coastal sea areas specially stipulated by the Russian Federation, in which the discharge of ballast water can cause significant harm to the environment, health person, property or biological resources). When introducing such areas, the Russian Federation is obliged to notify shipowners and other interested parties in advance at least 6 months in advance. By the date of entry into force of the Convention, Russia has not taken a decision that the discharge of ballast water from ships operating exclusively in waters under the jurisdiction of Russia or in waters under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and on the high seas, or will worsen the environment, human health, property or resources - own or adjacent other states, or cause damage to them, and therefore for such ships there is no obligation to comply with the requirements of the Convention, unless the Compulsory Regulations for a particular seaport establish procedures for managing ballast water when entering such a seaport. There is no need for these ships to obtain any exemption or exemption from the requirements of the Convention.

In the Russian Federation, the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping is the authorized organization for the inspection of ships for compliance with the Convention, and for ships registered in the Russian International Ship Register, the classification societies Bureau Veritas and RINA are also authorized.

Based on the results of the survey for compliance with the Convention, the ship is issued an International Ballast Water Management Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the Certificate).

One of the requirements of the Convention is that the ship has a ballast water management system that treats such water so that the number of pests in water discharged overboard does not exceed certain concentrations (Standard D-2).

Ships built on or after September 8, 2017 must comply with Standard D-2 from the date of delivery.

For existing ships, a D-2 ballast water management system must be installed on board before the next International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP) renewal survey date after 8 September 2017.

Vessels not subject to the IOPP renewal survey must comply with the D-2 standard from September 8, 2017.

The International Maritime Organization in 2017 at MEPC-71 considered the issue of the timing and procedure for the application of the D-2 standard (the need to have a ballast water management system on board) and approved a resolution suggesting the following schedule for the application of the D-2 standard:

ships built on or after September 8, 2017 must comply with D-2 requirements by the time the ship is delivered;

for ships built before September 8, 2017, the application of the D-2 standard is determined depending on the timing of the renewal survey under IOPP, namely:

if an IOPP renewal survey was conducted between 8 September 2014 and 8 September 2017, the ship must comply with D-2 at the first IOPP renewal after the entry into force of the Convention (8 September 2017);

if an IOPP renewal survey was conducted between 8 September 2017 and 8 September 2019, the ship must comply with D-2 at the second IOPP renewal survey after the entry into force of the Convention.

For ships not subject to the requirements of MARPOL Annex 1, the deadline for compliance with the D-2 standard is determined by the Administration, but it should be no later than September 8, 2024.

Due to the fact that the Convention has not yet entered into force at the time of MEPC71, the above scheme will be finally adopted at MEPC-72 in April 2018 after the entry into force of the Convention.

In the Russian Federation, the possibility of an early deadline for presenting a vessel for a renewal survey under IOPP has been confirmed, which allows shipowners to receive the maximum delay in the application of the D-2 standard if the above conditions are met.

Doom"TorryCanyon”

1967, marked by the rescue of MareNostrum and the sinking of TorryCanyon, was a particularly horrific year. As evidenced by the Lloyd's Register, it turned out to be the most difficult year in the history of shipping - 337 ships with a total displacement of 832.8 thousand tons were lost in various areas of the ocean. Fifteen of them disappeared without a trace and for unknown reasons. Most of the rest owed their deaths to known enemies: water entering the compartments, collision, fire on board, stranding or reef.

The TorryCanyon was one of the ships that hit the underwater rock. The responses of this event are still heard in many countries of the world. In one form or another, it affected the governments of Liberia, England, France and the United States, greatly contributed to the awareness of mankind of the danger of environmental pollution and, in the end, should lead to the issuance of laws and regulations that necessitate the development of new rescue methods to prevent surface pollution. seas in the event of an accident of such giant tankers.

Tanker "TorryCanyon" with a length of 296.8 m was one of the largest ships in the world. Its hull, in fact, was a lot of floating oil tanks, to which a superstructure was added as a kind of appendage, and somewhere deep inside two steam turbines with a total capacity of 25,270 liters were hidden. s, the tanker held 850 thousand barrels of oil - 117 thousand tons! The tanker's own fuel tanks were designed for 12.3 thousand tons of liquid fuel. The ship was assigned to Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, but belonged to the Barracuda Tanker Corporation. The company's headquarters were located in Hamilton, Bermuda, where the filing cabinets of Butterfield, Dill & Co. kept documents that practically amounted to all the property and essence of the company. The Barracuda Tanker Corporation was not a subsidiary of the Union Oil concern, although it was a purely holding company of the latter, formed only to lease ships to the concern in order to reduce - on a completely legal basis - the amount of taxes they paid. True, this somewhat complicated the matter when it was required to initiate legal prosecution against someone. The plaintiffs - they were countries, not individuals, at first did not really understand who, in fact, should be sued.

The TorryCanyon had a crew of 36, led by Captain Pastrengo Ruggiati. The ship had a radar with a range of 80 miles, a Loran radio navigation system, a radiotelephone station for talking with the shore, and an echo sounder with a recorder. Insured for 18 million dollars. the tanker was assigned class 100A1 of the Lloyd's Register - the highest class for ships of this type.

On March 18, 1967, the TorryCanyon, returning from the Persian Gulf with a full cargo of oil, approached the Isles of Scilly - 48 bare rocks that protruded from the water at a distance of 21-31 miles from the tip of the Cornwall peninsula in England.

At 8:18 a.m., Rugiati decided to steer the ship into a passage 6.5 miles wide and 60 meters deep between the islands and a granite reef known as the Seven Stones. The British Admiralty Guide to Crossing the English Channel advises captains of large ships not to use this passage. Unfortunately, Ruggiati did not have this useful little book with him.

The English Channel was littered with fishing boats, and Ruggiati could not turn where he should have. At 0848 he realized that the tanker was heading straight for Pollard Rock, 16 miles off the coast of Cornwall. He ordered the helmsman to sharply turn the rudder to the left, but for a reason that remained unexplained, the steering switch was in automatic mode, so it was useless to turn the helm.

It took two minutes to put the switch in the right position and sharply shift the steering wheel to the left; it took only 1 minute and 58 seconds for the tanker to hit Pollard Rock.

Distress signals went on the air, while Ruggiati unsuccessfully tried to get the tanker off the cliff. Seven vessels responded to the calls, but the Utrecht was the first to arrive at the scene of the accident, which belonged to the same Dutch company Weissmuller, whose tugboats had recently saved the Mare Nostrum. By the time the Utrecht arrived, the company had already phoned Pacific Coast Transportation in Los Angeles, representing the ship's owners, and were trying to negotiate a contract to salvage the tanker on the usual "No Salvation, No Reward" basis. If such a contract could be concluded, the rescuers would have made at least a million dollars.

At 1240, Hille Post, the captain of the Utrecht, put his men on board the tanker. Near the accident site, two British Navy helicopters hung in the air, ready, if necessary, to remove the crew and rescuers from the Torry Canyon, since by this time the ship, partially flooded, was rolling heavily under the impact of the waves from side to side and hitting the rocks. About 5,000 tons of oil have already spilled into the sea from the ruptured tanks of the tanker. In an attempt to reduce the mass of the ship, the crew actively pumped the rest of the oil overboard, resulting in an oil slick about six miles in diameter around the TorryCanyon. The minesweeper Clarbeston approached the scene of the accident, delivering a thousand gallons of emulsifier (detergent): the tugboat Jayzent was also approaching with the remnants of the Navy stocks - 3.5 thousand gallons of detergent on board. The next morning, March 18, two more Weissmuller tugs, the Titan and Stentor, arrived, as well as the Portuguese tug Praia da Draga, chartered by the company.

The engine room of the TorryCanyon was almost two meters flooded with water and oil, the boilers went out, the pumps stopped, only emergency generators worked. as the seawater displaced the oil from the bow tanks, the tanker became completely buoyant at the bow. The edge of the bulwark of the forecastle, tilted by 8°, was already level with the surface of the water, a strong wind was blowing, 16 people asked to be removed from the tanker.

On the same night, after the Utrecht's towline broke during an unsuccessful attempt to pull the TorryCanyon off the rocks, helicopters and the tanker's lifeboats removed all the people who were there. It got only the captain Ruggiati, three members of his crew and two rescuers.

In the 30 hours that have passed since the accident, the oil has spread over the water in a giant strip 18 miles long and 4 miles wide. Along the edges of the strip, she floated on the water with a thin film, but near the tanker, her thickness reached 455 mm.

By order of British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Morris Foley, Deputy Secretary of Defense (Navy), was appointed head of the rescue operations. The problem that arose was extremely complex, both politically and legally - the ship, the property of citizens of another country, was in international waters, outside the three-mile zone of British territorial waters. Any action of the government of England, as well as its complete inaction, could seem to someone wrong or illegal.

On March 20, Secretary of Defense Denis Healy announced that 20 ships were using 200,000 gallons of emulsifier (detergent) worth 500,000 lbs of oil to clean up the sea. Art. Critics of the government's actions demanded that the tanker, whoever it belongs to, be burned or, in extreme cases, the oil remaining in its tanks be pumped to other tankers. Those who put forward such a proposal did not understand that the pumping would have to be carried out using a vacuum system (the power sources on the TorryCanyon, of course, were out of order long ago) and this would take several months at best. In addition, such a plan assumed the possibility of creating a reliable hose connection between tankers, which was very doubtful.

On the same day, a specialist in this kind of work, a representative of the Weissmuller company Hans Stahl, who took part in the rescue operations, reported that out of 18 TorryCanyon cargo tanks, 14 were torn apart by pitfalls. The rock, like a giant finger, pierced more than 5 m into the bottom of the ship. The tanker's fuel tanks, pump rooms and forward cargo spaces were also pierced.

On Tuesday, March 21, relations between the Union Oil concern and the British government became more tense: oil spread over an area of ​​100 square miles, with a huge slick moving towards England. It was expected that by the end of the week it would reach the coast of Cornwall - the main seaside resort area of ​​England.

Despite the growing tension, rescue work continued, but on Tuesday at noon there was an explosion in the engine room. Many were injured in the process, and two - Rodriguez Virgilio and Hans Stahl were thrown overboard by the explosion. Thirty-six-year-old Steel, who was lifted from the water after Virgilio remained unharmed, died before he could be taken to a hospital in the English city of Penzance. The cause of the explosion, in all likelihood, was a spark that ignited oil vapors in the space below deck. The Weissmuller Company had already spent $50,000 on salvage work, and for this reason did not intend to abandon the continuation of attempts to salvage the ship at such an early stage of the operation.

By Wednesday, March 22, the water level in the engine room had risen from 1.8 to 16.7 m. ”) so that the tanker floats on an air cushion. Pilots David Eastwood and Thomas Price delivered by helicopter to the deck of TorryCanyon 6-ton compressors taken from rescue boats.

In the meantime, a 14-member scientific and technical committee was urgently formed under the chairmanship of the chief scientific adviser to the British Prime Minister, Solly Zuckerman. The Council was to consider possible actions in the event of the failure of the operation to rescue the tanker. The only way out was to destroy the ship, along with the 80,000 tons of oil still in her cargo tanks. If it is not possible to destroy the tanker, then one should try to deal with the oil directly on the coast. The army, the members of the committee decided, in this case would be responsible for cleaning the beaches and the 300-meter strip of water along them, and the Navy would clean the surface of the water from oil outside this zone.

At the end of the Easter week, March 24-26, the Weissmuller company made a last attempt to save the tanker. This was facilitated by a very high tide - the water level was almost two meters higher than at the time of the Torry Canyon accident. Only one problem remained unresolved: where to tow the ship when it was taken off the rocks. The tanker, even in its current deplorable state, cost at least $10 million. (naturally, only after it is pulled into the water), but not a single country in the world would allow this oil-spewing hulk to be towed into its coastal waters.

Plans to rescue the tanker ended in complete failure. Several times the tugboats “Utrecht”, “Stentor” and “Titan” (the total power of their engines reached almost 7 thousand hp) tried to pull the tanker off the rocks, but, despite the compressors working at full load, supplying compressed air to the cargo the ship's tanks, and the high tide, the TorryCanyon never moved an inch. On Sunday afternoon, a clearly visible crack formed in the hull of the tanker, probably caused by the vessel's hitting stones that had not stopped for 8 days. By noon on March 27, the tanker broke in half, and now both halves of the vessel were separated by 8 m of water. There was still hope to save the stern of the ship, but she slipped off a cliff into the sea and sank.

As early as Friday, storm winds at speeds of over 70 km/h drove oil to the coast of Cornwall, where it flooded the beaches for almost 100 km. The first reports began to appear in the newspapers about the sad fate of seabirds caught in the oil strip.

On March 28, at 9 am, the Weissmuller company decided to stop further attempts. Because the company didn't save anything, it didn't get anything. On the same day, the Union Oil concern renounced its rights to the tanker in favor of insurers - the American ship insurance syndicate and some Lloyd's insurance companies. Almost immediately, British Navy aircraft began bombarding the ship to ignite and destroy the oil before it completely destroyed the beaches. Such action was like shooting cannons at sparrows, but at the same time it was the only way out, since the plan to use explosive charges that could be precisely calculated and laid was rejected as too risky.

Bombers of the British Navy “Bukenir”, approaching the target at a speed of 900 km / h, dropped 41 bombs weighing 450 kg each from a height of 760 m onto the tanker. Aluminum was added to the explosive-incendiary mixture that the bombs were equipped with to increase the flame. The fuses, set with a delay of 0.035 s, were supposed to detonate the bombs after they pierce the deck of the tanker. 30 bombs hit the target.

The bombers were followed by RAF Hunter jet fighters, dropping aluminum tanks of aviation gasoline suspended under their wings into the flames of fire. More than 20 thousand liters. gasoline was supposed to help spread the fire. Thick columns of smoke rose into the sky over the tanker engulfed in flames for two hours. The next day, air raids resumed. Rockets and another 23.5 thousand liters flew into the fire. aviation gasoline. Napalm thrown into the oil floating on the water did not ignite it. On March 30, another 50 tons of bombs hit the tanker. The bombing cost the British government £200,000. Art.

From April 7 to 13, divers from the Plymouth Naval Base, led by Lieutenant Cyril Lafferty, surveyed the remains of a tanker lying at a depth of 20 m to determine how much oil was still left in her tanks. Only in some of them was a layer of semi-hardened oil found. Torry Canyon was dead.

But the epic connected with him was just unfolding. As soon as the bombardment ended, a massive operation began to clear the coast of Cornwall. At the same time, they tried to save seabirds whose feathers were soaked in oil or detergent. Everything turned out to be in vain. The freshly cleaned beaches were again flooded with oil brought by the surf, and the birds - they simply died.

1,000 marines were at the head of the strike force sent to clear the coast, followed by 1,200 British soldiers. People got to hard-to-reach areas by ropes lowered from rocks - and in some cases they, along with supplies of detergent, were lowered from helicopters. There was little sense from the volunteers from among the population, and sometimes they just got in the way. The help of the women's volunteer corps turned out to be more effective. The US Air Force Air Force 3 contributed 86 men, 34 trucks and half a million dollars. 78 British fire brigades were sent in full strength to fight the oil. In the end, the joint efforts paid off. In mid-May, the troops returned to their quarters, and by early June the beaches were cleared of oil. After an understandable lack of people at the beginning of the season, by the end of the summer, the resorts resumed normal activities.

As the results of the operation showed, the use of chemicals was, apparently, the best way to deal with major oil pollution. The trouble in this case was only that there was too much oil. Even before the start of the bombardment of the tanker, about 50 thousand tons of it leaked out; approximately 15 thousand tons of this amount evaporated or dissipated naturally. Thus, 35 thousand tons remained on the sea surface. Approximately 3.5 thousand tons of detergent-emulsifiers were used during the operation - an amount sufficient to disperse or bind 15 thousand tons of oil. 20 thousand tons of oil were washed ashore.

The disastrous effects of oil pollution

In the course of the events described, a number of other unpleasant facts also came to light.

A completely clean-looking beach could be saturated to a considerable depth with oil that had seeped there under the action of the surf. The only way to fight in such cases was to plow and harrow such areas. The most discouraging was that the detergent, effective on oil, was extremely poisonous to marine vegetation and living organisms of the intertidal zone. Shellfish (clams, mussels and oysters) were the hardest hit, with oil and detergent combined being more damaging than either alone.

On the high seas, oil floating on the surface does not harm marine organisms. However, after being treated with detergent, plunging into the water, it brings death to the inhabitants of shallow water, unable to flee.

The heaviest blow fell on the birds. Their oil- and detergent-soaked feathers lost their water-repellent properties and no longer retained heat, which led to a rapid cooling of the body. Lungs, throats, intestines of birds, clogged with foam from oil and detergents, were burned. Oil, in addition, caused peritonitis, disruption of the liver and kidneys, paralysis and blindness. Birds whose feathers were heavily saturated with oil perished without exception; less than 20% of the victims survived. On the coast of Cornwall, 20,000 guillemots and 5,000 auks perished. Nesting area decreased by 25%. Of the 7849 rescued birds, only 450 survived a few days later.

On April 9, a 30 x 5 mile oil slick from the Torry Canyon reached the coast of Brittany. The French government did not have time to take any action while the oil driven by the wind at a speed of 35 knots approached the coast of France. In order to somehow bind the oil floating on the water, it was sprinkled with sawdust; on the shore it was collected by the local population shod in rubber boots with the help of shovels. The whole operation cost France 3 million dollars.

On April 3, meetings of the commission of inquiry began in Genoa, officially created by the government of Liberia, but actually consisting of three American businessmen. The Commission acknowledged that Captain Rugiati was solely responsible for the sinking of the Torry Canyon. In September 1967, he was stripped of his captain's diploma. Many observers made a big fuss about the allegedly biased decision of the commission, trying to prove that the real culprits are the Barracuda Tanker Corporation or Union Oil. Such a point of view seems somewhat strange, given the gross violations of the rules of navigation committed by Ruggiati and recognized by him on that memorable morning. Even at the dawn of the development of navigation, the responsibility of the captain for his ship became an immutable maritime law. No matter how harsh it may seem, there is no place for democracy on a ship at sea, it is unacceptable. And power inevitably means responsibility.

On May 4, the British government filed a formal lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the Barracuda Tanker Corporation, in which it asserted its rights to the company-owned vessels Lake Palourd and San Sinena, the same type as Torry Canyon. The court brought the case in the absence of the defendant, in this case the Barracuda Tanker Corporation. On July 15, the British caught Lake Palourd when she stopped for one hour in Singapore, and nailed a subpoena to her mast, "arresting" the tanker until the company issued a promissory note in the amount of 8.4 million dollars.

The French were five minutes late in doing the same operation, but then they caught a tanker in Rotterdam and thus forced the company to issue them a similar undertaking.

Onion Oil, which chartered Lake Palourd, as TorryCanyon once did, filed a US District Court request to limit the amount of debt to a “limited fund,” which in the US is considered equal to the value of the salvaged vessel, property or cargo. Because one of TorryCanyon's life rafts was washed ashore a few days after the disaster, Union Oil and/or Barracuda Tanker Corporation's debt was only $50.

However, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal, the right to such a limitation of liability was granted only to the owner of the vessel, and not to its charterer. After such a decision was made, Union Oil began negotiations to resolve the conflict. On November 11, 1969, Barracuda Tanker Corporation and Union Oil agreed to pay the British and French governments a total of $7.2 million. in reimbursement of the costs of eliminating the consequences of pollution of the coast of Cornwall and Brittany.

Insurance companies that have already paid out $16.5 million insurance for the lost ship, were forced to fork out again. Lloyd paid about 70% of this amount, the rest was taken over by the American consortium.

The Torry Canyon case will no doubt have far-reaching implications and will have some impact on some aspects of maritime rescue operations.

The company "Norta MIT" is a representative of the company Headway Technology Co.Ltd, manufacturer of control systems and ballast water treatment.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS, 2004 from the IMO was created as a result of growing evidence of damage from the introduction of alien aquatic organisms, and although its development has taken many years, its ratification is nearing.

This agreement represents a dramatic change in the management of ships' ballast water, and while well-intentioned, there is great potential for disputes, ship delays, cancellation of charter agreements and local penalties.

On 8 September 2016, Finland acceded to the IMO International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment, 2004. Finland became the 52nd State Party to the Convention. At the same time, the total gross tonnage of the ships of these states amounted to 35.1441%. Thus, the countdown threshold before the entry into force of the Convention has been reached, and the document will enter into force on September 8, 2017.

As of today RS has already carried out the examination of ballast water management systems of 12 companies and issued 84 Type Approval Certificates systems on behalf of the Russian Maritime Administration.

The Register has developed Guidelines for the Application of the International Convention on the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. Ships in the RS class that comply with the D-1 standard requirement for safe offshore ballast changing, if the ship carries the Guidelines for the safe offshore ballast water change, are assigned the additional BWM mark in the class symbol. RS recommends that all shipowners evaluate the degree of compliance with the requirements of the Convention on their ships, select an approved ballast water management system and develop appropriate technical documentation

Ballast Water Management System
OceanGuard® Ballast Water Management System

OceanGuard® BWMS developed and provided by Headway Technology Co, Ltd in cooperation with Harbin Engineering University. Its unique structure and optimal design allows the vessels, during the delivery of ballast water, not to pose a threat to marine life in the surrounding waters, thus preserving the marine ecology.

BWMS Installation Diagram

Compliance with the requirements of classification societies

The OceanGuard® Ballast Water Management System has been approved by classification societies such as IMO , Lloyd's Register (LR), ABS, BV , CCS , DNV , NK , RINA , Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS), and also evidence Alternate Management System (AMS) released by USCG .

Advanced technology. AEOP Electro-Catalytic Oxidation Process

The hydroxyl radicals generated during the AEOP purification process disappear within a few nanoseconds. These radicals have a high sterilization efficiency, which is able to effectively kill various bacteria, viruses, algae and dormant eggs in ballast water (wide sterilization spectrum) in a chain reaction mode.

The sterilization process can be completed inside the EUT. The concentration of TRO (Total Residual Oxidation) can be adjusted within 2 ppm so that TRO can perform advanced control functions in ballast tanks.

No corrosion

The hydroxyl radicals generated during the cleaning process disappear within a few nanoseconds. The sterilization process is completely completed inside the EUT. At the same time, the concentration of TRO remains within 2 ppm. Based on the results of long-term operation, the system has proved to be safe and reliable, and water treated with BWMS does not cause corrosion of the hull.

Compact design; High quality components

Compact structure, small size, easy installation and maintenance. BWMS can be installed on various ships with various internal structures. High quality materials and components with a long service life are used for all components.

Processing in one pass

The complete cleaning process takes place during the intake of ballast water, there is no need to perform cleaning when issuing ballast water. Suitable for all types of boats.

energy efficiency

Low operating costs. To treat 1000 m3 of ballast water, the electricity consumption is about 17 kWh.

Explosion proof

BWMS has an explosion proof certificate. This allows you to install it in the premises of pumping stations of oil tankers and liquefied gas carriers.

Wide range of applications

BWMS provides excellent performance in both fresh and sea water applications. The treated ballast water produced does not cause any harm to the environment.

BWMS product line

Name	Rated capacity, m3/h	Productivity, m3/h	power, kWt	Dimensions, mm
HMT-100	100	30-120	2	370x380x1400
HMT-200	200	80-250	3.5	510x380x1400
HMT-300	300	150-350	5	510x380x1735
HMT-450	450	300-550	7	569x416x1815
HMT-600	600	350-700	10	600x470x1900
HMT-800	800	400-950	13.5	620x470x1900
HMT-1000	1000	600-1000	17	640x570x2100
HMT-1200	1200	800-1400	20	730x570x2100
HMT-1500	1500	1000-1700	25	730x620x2200
HMT-2000	2000	1500-2300	33.5	880x620x2200
HMT-2500	2500	2000-2800	42	1030x640x2210
HMT-3000	3000	2200-3500	50	1460x620x2200
HMT-6000	6000	4500-6500	100	1460x1240x2200
HMT-9000	9000	6500-10000	150	2060x1280x2210

In this video you can see how the Headway ballast water treatment system works.

AEOP BWMS technology

BWMS system developed by the company Headway Technology Co.,Ltd in cooperation with Harbin Engineering University. BWMS uses an advanced Electro-Catalytic Oxidation Process (AEOP) to neutralize microbes, bacteria, viruses and dormant eggs in water using special semiconductor materials under the action of electronic excitation and hydroxyl radicals (-OH) formed by water molecules. Hydroxo groups (-OH) in the AEOP process are one of the most active substances with very strong oxidizing properties. They instantly affect all biological macromolecules, microorganisms and other organic pollutants with the help of various types of chemical reactions. In addition, they have an extremely fast reaction rate and a strong negative charge. The end products of the reaction are CO2, H2O and traces of an inorganic salt without any hazardous residues. In this way, the treated waters can be dumped overboard without the risk of environmental pollution. The chemical reaction that involves hydroxyl radicals is a free radical reaction, and it is a very fast reaction. Usually the rate of reaction with microorganisms is over 10E9 l/mol*s. In addition, the lifetime of the hydroxo group forms is quite short, less than 10E-12 s, so that the high efficiency of BWMS is guaranteed.

EUT block is the main element of the BWMS system. Each individual block has a capacity of 100 to 3000 m3/h. The block consists of two parts: Electro-catalysis block and Ultrasonic block. The Electro-catalysis unit is capable of producing large amounts of hydroxyl radicals and other highly reactive oxidizing agents to neutralize all organisms in ballast water within a few nanoseconds. In the disinfection process, the ultrasonic unit can regularly clean the surface of the electro-catalysis unit, which ensures the long-term effectiveness of the electro-catalyst material. The complete disinfection process takes place inside the EUT block.

Benefits of the control panel

· Local and remote control;

· The fault can be routed to the ship's control system;

· Siemens LED monitor displays the status of system components in real time;

· Siemens programmable controller monitors sensor readings in real time;

· Storage of parameters in memory within 24 months. The parameters can be printed at any time;

· Simple operation.

BWMS filter performs a fully automatic backwashing of the filter, which can take place simultaneously with filtration and reverse circulation. Filtration accuracy 50 μm. This allows organisms larger than 50 µm to be removed to prevent sedimentation in the tanks.

Filter Benefits

Provides maximum filtration;

· Automatic backwash during filtration;

High performance proven by test results in various waters;

· Robust design easy to operate;

· Low pressure loss, no need to install a booster pump.

The filtration stage is essential in the ballast water treatment process.

As required by the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment, IMO 2004, both ballast water and sediment are an important component. Thus, through a practical study of sediments, including sediments in ballast tanks, it was determined that sediments in ballast tanks not only provide ground for the development of organisms, but can also lead to serious corrosion of the hull. The following images of deposits and corrosion compare the same ballast tank.

For all of the above equipment, we supply spare parts according to the manufacturer's catalog numbers .

The problem of the spread of invasive species of living organisms traveling in ballast waters is well known. Sovcomflot began to look for ways to solve this problem in advance, when it was not yet clear which manufacturer of ballast water treatment systems would be approved. Thanks to this, we are now far ahead in this matter, but the process of installing the necessary equipment on ships turned out to be quite difficult. Fleet Director of SCF Management Services (Cyprus), Candidate of Technical Sciences Oleg Kalinin and Superintendent Sergey Minakov talk about the company's experience.

Based on the materials of the newspaper "Vestnik SKF"

Legislation

The IMO International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment was approved in 2004 and entered into force in September 2017. By this time, the document has been ratified by 66 countries, which account for 75% of world trade tonnage.

To comply with the requirements of the convention, shipowners must fulfill a number of conditions, one of which is the installation of ballast water management systems (BWMS) on ships.

In mid-2017, two months before the entry into force of the convention, the 71st session of the IMO Committee for Environmental Protection took place, at which several “compromise alternative amendments” were adopted. As a result, some existing ships have received relief: if the renewal survey for the prevention of oil pollution was carried out before September 8, 2014, then compliance with the requirements of the convention is necessary not at the first survey after the entry into force of the convention, but at the second, which gives a five-year delay.

In addition to the convention, the requirements of the US Coast Guard regulating ballast operations in the territorial waters of this country also came into force. To obtain USCG type approval, a BWM system must be tested by an independent, approved laboratory.

Note that the installation of a BWMS is not required to comply with US Coast Guard standards. Other options available to the shipowner include delivering ballast to onshore treatment systems (or another ship), using water from the US or Canadian public water system as ballast, or leaving the ballast on board the ship.

The US Coast Guard is granting an 18 or 30 month grace period for vessels that must be brought into compliance by December 2018. To qualify for a deferment, the shipowner must prove that the ship is unable to begin using any of the specified ballast cleanup methods by that date.

VWMS market

Today, the VWMS market is already quite competitive. There are both improved versions of earlier systems and new BWMS that take into account the operating experience of products from other brands.

Several dozens of BWMS are available on the market. However, only six of them received type approval from the US Coast Guard and are approved for use in the territorial waters of this country. Another seven BWMS are under consideration. Moreover, if permanent work in the US region is not planned, the choice of systems will be much wider.

Basically, the work of modern BWMS is based on one of five principles:

– treatment of ballast with ultraviolet;

– treatment of ballast with inert gas;

– electrolysis of the associated flow;

– full flow electrolysis;

– chemical injection (biocide system).

In recent years, the maritime transport industry has gained experience in water treatment, so more and more information about the reliability of systems is becoming available on the market. Ultimately, however, the responsibility for system performance rests with the shipowner himself, as having a certificate of approval does not guarantee that the system will operate smoothly on all ships or in all situations.

Six years of preparation

Sovcomflot began preparations for the conversion of ships in its fleet six years before the entry into force of the convention. Although the bulk of the company's fleet is made up of oil tankers and product tankers, they all differ in design and navigation area. It is not possible to select a single BWMS for all types of ships.

Sovcomflot Group's specialists conducted a thorough assessment of all technologies available on the market and identified manufacturers with whom they continued negotiations. Also, an analysis was made of the operation of ships depending on the charter conditions and those on which the installation of a BWMS is desirable during the next scheduled dry docking were determined so as not to limit the area and mode of operation.

Based on the results of this preparatory work, over two dozen systems were installed on tankers of various types and designs by 2018, and this is in addition to new buildings that were already equipped with BWMS at the shipyard.

Prior to the preparation of each project, a 3D scan of those parts of the ship that were considered suitable for the installation of the BWMS and its components was carried out. On the basis of a three-dimensional model, a preliminary layout of several systems was developed, after which the company made the final choice and began working on a detailed design and specification for the work.,

Influence of design features of the ship

First of all, the choice of BWMS is limited to those models that the design of the ship allows to physically install on board.

For tankers, one of the "screening out" criteria is the availability of certified equipment for installation in hazardous areas (explosion-proof design).

Next, it is necessary to assess the real capabilities of the power plant: the main treatment of ballast water occurs during unloading, which is already the most energy-intensive process on a tanker. If electric drives are used as cargo and ballast pumps, there may not be free power.

When evaluating the energy consumption of a BWMS, it must be remembered that the information provided by the manufacturer may require clarification. If the operation of the system depends on the properties of the water, the energy consumption is often stated based on ideal conditions, although when operating in a region with different water properties (low salinity, low temperature, turbid water, etc.), the energy consumption of some types of systems will increase.

Let us estimate the energy consumption of various types of water supply systems using the example of a conventional tanker with ballast pumps with a total capacity of 2 thousand cubic meters. m/h The biocide system will consume the least energy - about 10 kW. This level is independent of the properties of the water, so the system can be seriously considered for installation on ships with a small power plant.

The inert gas treatment system is also independent of the properties of water and has a constant energy consumption of about 70 kW (however, be aware of the fuel consumption of the gasifier). Under normal conditions, UV systems will “eat up” 100-150 kW. The energy consumption of a full flow electrolysis system is directly related to the salinity of the feed water: the lower the salinity, the higher the energy consumption. When salinity decreases to 1 PSU, the required power reaches 150 kW or more.

The most difficult thing is to estimate the energy consumption of the WWW for low-flow electrolysis. These systems physically cannot operate at salinities below 10-15 PSU, where they consume 130-200 kW, while under normal conditions (36 PSU salinity), the power consumption drops to 100 kW and below. The temperature of the outboard water also has an impact on energy consumption. An important factor is the availability of space on board. Even on a Suezmax tanker with a pump room, a large-scale system can only be installed on deck, in a specially designed room. This will entail replacing or upgrading the cargo pumps or installing a booster pump to provide sufficient head.

One of the weakest points is the filtering equipment. Its installation requires the greatest amount of modernization of the ballast system.

Mounting

Experience shows that, if necessary, any system can be installed on any ship, the only question is the volume and cost of the associated modernization. That is why it is so important to analyze the installation drawings and installation requirements proposed by the BWMS manufacturer from the very beginning.

As a rule, installation of a BWMS does not require docking, but it will not be possible to do without the decommissioning of the vessel - at least in the case of large tankers. Most of the welding and installation work must be carried out in the so-called hazardous areas, and without complete or partial degassing of the tanker, they cannot be carried out.

When installing system components in the pump room, it is not always possible to mount them side by side - there is not enough space. Then you have to arrange them vertically. In this case, it is often necessary to open the deck in order to deliver the overall elements of the BWMS to the pump room.

It is important to keep in mind the compatibility of the selected materials and the BWMS. For example, the choice of materials for pipelines for supplying a disinfectant mixture in co-flow systems (both biocidal and electrolysis) is limited due to the aggressiveness of the environment.

When installing a biocide-type BWMS, a location must be chosen for the chemical containers. It is desirable that this place be accessible for servicing by a ship's crane. Usually on tankers, a suitable place is in the area of ​​​​the false pipe.

Exploitation

The operational criteria are based on the operating profile of the vessel. Some BWMS require chemicals – ensure that the vessel is supplied with biocides. In some systems, the water treatment time (or self-disintegration of oxidizers) can be up to three days. Such BWMS are not suitable for vessels operating on the short arm.

Some BWMS cannot operate in fresh water or low salinity water. The solution is to store salt water in a special tank in advance, which, of course, greatly complicates the planning process. Alternatively, an additional brine tank can be installed.

Another important factor is the convenience of the system for the crew. In the ideal case, the BWMS should not require intervention during operation, turn on with one button, and automatically adjust to the ballast system. So far, such control is not available in all systems.

For ballasting in critical situations, there is a constructively incorporated opportunity to bypass the system. However, since the entry into force of the Convention, this has become more difficult. If the ballast was not treated when taken on board (due to a system malfunction or unsuitable water properties), it must be treated during the passage (some technologies allow this) or completely changed on the voyage, having already treated new ballast. If the transition is short or the weather is stormy, this is not easy to do.

Budget

The cost of a BWMS is unreasonably high, and the operating costs are usually significant. This is especially sensitive against the backdrop of lower freight rates. It is impossible to talk about the payback of the VWMS (with a very small and rather conditional exception).

For a tanker with ballast pumps with a total capacity of 2 thousand cubic meters. m/h, the purchase price of the BWMS ranges from $500,000 to $700,000 (depending on the chosen water treatment technology). If the total capacity of the tanker's ballast pumps reaches 5 thousand cubic meters. m/h (these are Aframax and Suezmax ships), the cost of the BWMS will double or even more. Equipment installation costs are also significant and sometimes exceed the total cost of the system itself.

It is also important to take into account the fixed costs of operating the BWMS. For example, some types of BWMS require changing filters every 5-7 years, the cost of each filter is about $6,000, for a system with a capacity of 5,000 cubic meters. m / h you need 8 of these elements. In addition, most types of BWMS require significant fuel consumption (either direct or for power generation). The exception is biocidal systems, but it is difficult to save on them, because the chemicals themselves are also expensive. For example, for processing 65 thousand cubic meters. m of water will have to spend about $ 7 thousand, which is comparable to the cost of operating a UV system that consumes electricity in full.

Another item of expenditure is obtaining the approval of the classification society.

To obtain USCG Type Approval, you will also need to pay an additional fee for system testing by an independent laboratory. According to some manufacturers, this procedure costs about $3 million.

Timing

One of the determining factors is the production time of the system, now it takes about 4-6 months. It takes about a month to deliver large-sized components of the BWMS to the installation site.

In parallel with the manufacture of the system, it is necessary to develop design documentation for the Register and the ship repair company, which will install the BWMS on the ship. Its preparation can take up to three months. This work can be done either by the system manufacturer, or by the shipyard itself, or by an independent engineering company contracted out, or by the shipowner's in-house design bureau. We chose to work with a contractor who accompanies the entire project cycle from scanning and theoretical study of the project to supervising the installation on the ship. In addition, it takes several months for the project to be approved by the Register.

Thus, the practical experience of Sovcomflot confirms that the installation of a BWMS is a long and laborious process. It is to be hoped that these efforts will make a real difference in the protection of marine ecosystems.

Maritime News of Russia No. 6 (2018)